milberg weiss bershad & schulman llp jeff...

$: MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP JEFF …securities.stanford.edu/filings-documents/1032/TRPH04_01/...DECLARATION OF JEFF S. WESTERMAN CASE NO.: 04-CV-04681 (SBA) DOCS\345563v2$
DECLARATION OF JEFF S. WESTERMAN CASE NO.: 04-CV-04681 (SBA) DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP JEFF S. WESTERMAN (SBN 94559) 355 S. Grand Avenue, Suite 4170 Los Angeles, CA 90071-3172 Telephone: (213) 617-1200 (213) 617-1975 (fax)

Lead Counsel for the Class

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

In re TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS

)))))))))))))

Case No. C 04 4681 SBA DECLARATION OF JEFF S. WESTERMAN IN SUPPORT OF (1) FINAL APPROVAL OF SETTLEMENT; (2) APPROVAL OF PLAN OF DISTRIBUTION; AND (3) AWARD OF ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES

DATE: April 11, 2006 TIME: 1:00 p.m. CTRM: The Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong

Case 4:04-cv-04681-SBA Document 69 Filed 03/06/2006 Page 1 of 19

DECLARATION OF JEFF S. WESTERMAN CASE NO.: 04-CV-04681 (SBA)

1

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

I, JEFF S. WESTERMAN, declare as follows:

1. I am a member of the firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, Lead

Counsel for plaintiff and the Class in the above referenced action (the “Litigation”). I make this

declaration in support of plaintiff’s application for (1) Final Approval of the Settlement (the

“Settlement”), (2) Approval of Plan of Allocation of Settlement Proceeds, and (3) Plaintiff’s

Counsel’s Application for Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses. I have

personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this declaration, and, if called as a witness, I could and

would testify competently thereto.

I. PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

2. The Settlement Stipulation created a settlement fund consisting of Two Million, Four

Hundred Fifty Thousand (2.45 million) shares of common stock of Tripath Technology, Inc.

(“Tripath” or the “Company”) and Two Hundred Thousand ($200,000) in cash for the benefit of all

persons who purchased the securities of Tripath during the period between January 29, 2004 and

June 13, 2005, inclusive (the “Class Period”), and who suffered damages thereby (the “Class”).

3. The Settlement is an excellent result for the Class, and was the result of the hard work

and effective advocacy by Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel who undertook prosecution of the Litigation on a

fully contingent basis. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel conducted an extensive investigation and analysis

regarding the law and facts relevant to the case. In that regard, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel: (a) gathered

and studied relevant publicly available information; (b) conducted an extensive investigation relating

to Plaintiff’s claims and the underlying events and transactions alleged in the complaint; (c)

researched the law applicable to Plaintiff’s claims and possible defenses that defendants could have

asserted; (d) investigated the financial condition of Tripath and the Individual Defendants; and (e)

worked with a damages consultant to assess the potential damages in the Litigation. In Plaintiff’s

Lead Counsel’s judgment, the foregoing has provided an adequate and satisfactory basis for the

evaluation of the Settlement.



2

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel is requesting 25% of the Settlement Fund, or 612,500 shares

of Tripath common stock, for attorneys’ fees.1 The aggregate lodestar of Plaintiff’s counsel is

$247,130.75. The fee request is within the range of fees customarily awarded in actions such as this

one and is justified in light of the benefit conferred on the Class, the risks undertaken, the quality of

representation, and the nature and extent of the legal services provided.

5. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel also seeks reimbursement of expenses reasonably and

necessarily incurred in prosecuting this Litigation. The expenses incurred by Plaintiff’s counsel are

$19,192.08 in the aggregate. This amount includes expenses such as photocopying, postage, filing

fees, and online factual and legal research.

6. The amount of the fee and expense application is fair both to the Class and Plaintiff’s

counsel and warrants this Court’s approval.

7. Significantly, after 9,265 claim packages were mailed to Class members, and a

summary notice published in Investor’s Business Journal, no objections to the Settlement were

received. Only four members have sought to be excluded from the Settlement. The unanimous

approval of the Settlement by Class members is the strongest indication that the Settlement is fair.

8. The Settlement represents an excellent recovery for the members of the Class, and

was achieved in an expeditious manner. The Settlement was negotiated by experienced counsel on

both sides with a firm understanding of the strengths and weaknesses of their respective cases. The

Settlement confers an immediate and substantial benefit to the Class and eliminates risk of continued

litigation whose favorable outcome could not be assured. Even if Plaintiff was successful at trial, it

is possible that a jury could award less to the Class than that which was obtained in the Settlement.

Accordingly, it is respectfully submitted that the Settlement and Plan of Allocation should be

approved as fair, reasonable and adequate, and Plaintiff’s counsel should be awarded attorneys’ fees

and reimbursement of expenses for the effort in creating this benefit on behalf of the Class.

1 The value of 612,000 shares, based on Tripath’s share price of 36 cents as of the date of the filing of this motion, is valued at $220,500.



3

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II. HISTORY OF THE LITIGATION

A. Filing of Complaints

9. Based on information available about the Company, Tripath is a San Jose-based

semiconductor company that focuses on providing power amplification to the digital media

consumer electronics and communications market. The Company owns the patented technology

called Digital Power Processing (DPP™) which leverages modern advances in digital signal

processing and power processing in audio, DSL, and wireless communication products.

10. In November, 2004, the following cases alleging violations of federal securities laws

against Tripath and certain of its officers were commenced in the United States District Court for the

Northern District of California, Oakland Division:

Goldberg v. Tripath Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 4681, filed 11/04/04

Cherbonnier v. Tripath Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 4936, filed 11/19/04

Bhandari v. Tripath Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 4969, filed 11/23/04

Oravec v. Tripath Technology, Inc., et al., Case No. 04 4976, filed 11/23/04

11. On December 22, 2004, the Court consolidated the four class action complaints.

12. The Complaints alleged that Tripath, Adya Tripathi (CEO) and David Echler (CFO)

(the “Individual Defendants”) violated Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934

(“Exchange Act”) and Rule 10b-5 promulgated thereunder, and Section 20(a) of the Exchange Act.

They allege that from January 29, 2004 to October 22, 2004, Tripath reported quarter after quarter of

record results in publicly disseminated press releases and SEC filings. Defendants attributed the

results to the sale of its products and design wins in the communications and home entertainment

system markets. However, unbeknownst to the Class, the Company’s seeming success was the result

of improper accounting that artificially inflated Tripath’s reported results. On October 22, 2004,

after the market closed, Tripath disclosed in a press release and a concurrent SEC filing on Form 8-K

that net revenues for third quarter 2004 would be “significantly below prior guidance of $4-$4.5

million” and that the Company expected its net loss for the third quarter to be “significantly greater

than previously anticipated.” The Company also disclosed that it was reviewing the return of $1.3

million in products from the Company’s distributor which was already recognized as revenue in the



4

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

second quarter of 2004. The Company further announced it might need to restate its revenues for the

second quarter 2004 and that its auditor, BDO Seidman, LLP, had resigned citing “material

weakness in Tripath’s internal controls concerning the effectiveness of Tripath’s Audit Committee

and Tripath’s ability to estimate distributor sales returns in accordance with SFAS no. 48.” The

complaints alleged that, in reaction to this news, Tripath common stock fell $0.75 per share from

$1.52 on October 22, 2004 to $0.77 on October 25, 2004, the next trading day. This constituted a

49% drop in Tripath’s stock price.

13. Thereafter, the Company made additional related disclosures concerning its financial

irregularities. The last disclosure by the Company was made on June 13, 2005.

B. Lead Plaintiff Motions

14. Pursuant to the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995 (“PSLRA”), on

November 5, 2004, notice was published regarding the filing of the case.

15. On January 4, 2005, pursuant to the PSLRA, motions for the appointment of lead

plaintiff and approval of selection of lead counsel were made by three competing movants: (i) The

Poteet Group, (ii) Duane Niccum and Ming Chan Wu, and (iii) the Tummarello Group. On

January 28, 2005, the Court appointed Robert Poteet as Lead Plaintiff and approved his choice of

counsel, the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP (“Milberg Weiss”), as Plaintiff’s

Lead Counsel.

III. THE SETTLEMENT

A. Settlement Negotiations

16. After the Court appointed Lead Plaintiff and approved of Milberg Weiss as Plaintiff’s

Lead Counsel, defendants’ counsel notified Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel that there was no insurance

coverage available to satisfy any potential judgment and that defendants would be unable to respond

to a large monetary judgment. Defendants’ counsel expressed an interest in negotiating a potential

settlement of the case.

17. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel conducted an investigation into the allegations in the

Complaint, Tripath’s financial and business condition and net worth of the Individual Defendants.



5

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

18. Among other things, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel reviewed Tripath’s SEC filings, press

releases and articles concerning Tripath, including the nature and cause of its problems with

financial reporting and internal controls. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel also assigned an investigator to

interview potential witnesses regarding the facts of this case.

19. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel also engaged in review and internal analysis that showed that

Tripath had very little cash, was burning through its available cash, and might not be able to continue

as a going concern in the future. For example, Tripath’s Form 10-Q for the quarterly period ended

December 31, 2004, filed with the SEC on February 4, 2005, showed that the Company had about

$3.9 million in cash, and disclosed that “[t]he Company will need to raise additional funds to finance

its activities through public or private equity or debt financings, the formation of strategic

partnerships or alliance with other companies or through bank borrowings with existing or new

banks.… Without sufficient capital to fund its operations, the Company will no longer be able to

continue as a going concern.” Based on Tripath's cash position, $3.9 million, as of December 31,

2004 and its contemporaneous monthly burn rate of $1.1 million, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel calculated

that the estimated time before cash ran out for Tripath was 3.5 months, assuming no additional

financing.

20. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel’s review and internal analysis also showed that the

Company’s stock was trading at less than a dollar, and that it was in danger of being delisted from

Nasdaq. Tripath securities was in fact later delisted from Nasdaq and is currently trading in the OTC

(Over the Counter) market.

21. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel also reviewed public filings to determine that no insurance

coverage was available. According to the Company’s SEC filings, in September 2002, the Company

canceled its D&O policy to reduce insurance expense. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel also obtained an

affidavit from Tripath’s CFO certifying that the Company had no insurance coverage. In addition,

insider trading records and asset searches revealed that Individual Defendants had very limited

ability to pay. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel determined that there was a substantial risk that Lead

Plaintiff would be unable to collect significantly more upon any potential jury verdict entered in the

Litigation against defendants than by way of the Settlement.



6

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

22. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel and defendants’ counsel entered into negotiations with a

view to compromising and settling the issues in dispute. Beginning March 3, 2005, the parties

engaged in extensive negotiations which occurred over the course of approximately four months.

The parties negotiated at arm’s length and took firm stances each step of the way. After numerous

offers and counter-offers, the parties reached an agreement to settle the case in principle on or about

June 23, 2005. Counsel for the parties spent weeks thereafter negotiating the precise terms of the

Settlement Stipulation. Many drafts and re-drafts were exchanged before the final terms of the

Settlement Stipulation was agreed to, signed and filed on July 12, 2005.

23. The Settlement before the Court was negotiated vigorously and at arm’s-length. Lead

Plaintiff’s Counsel believes the compromise in the Settlement represents a successful resolution of a

difficult and complex action.

24. Upon approval of the Settlement Stipulation by the Court and entry of a judgment that

becomes a final judgment, and upon satisfaction of the other conditions to the Settlement, the

Settlement Fund will be used for certain administrative expenses, including the costs and expenses of

providing notice to the Class; the cost of publishing the summary notice in Investor’s Business

Daily; payment of any taxes assessed against the Settlement Fund; costs associated with processing

the claims submitted; and to pay Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel’s fees and for reimbursement of the

expenses incurred by them in prosecuting the Litigation. The balance of the Settlement Fund (the

“Net Settlement Fund”) will be distributed according to the Plan of Allocation to Class members

who submit valid and timely proof of claim forms.

B. Preparation of the Stipulation of Settlement and Exhibits

25. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel prepared a draft of the Stipulation of Settlement and

Exhibits. There were extensive negotiations concerning the language of the Stipulation, including

the release language. Even after the principal issues were agreed to, there were many drafts and

redrafts of the document before the final agreement was executed.

26. The parties eventually signed the Stipulation effective as of July 12, 2005. The

Stipulation was submitted to the Court on the same day. On August 29, 2005, plaintiff filed a

motion for preliminary approval of settlement. The Court signed the order preliminarily approving



7

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

the Settlement on October 20, 2005. In granting the motion for preliminary approval of settlement,

the Court certified the Settlement Class, authorized notice to the Class, and set a Final Approval

Hearing Date (“Notice Order”).

C. Mailing and Publication of Notice of Settlement

27. The Notice Order directed that notice be given of the Settlement and that a hearing on

the Settlement be scheduled on January 24, 2006.

28. The Notice Order specifically directed that Plaintiff’s Counsel cause the Notice of

Pendency of Class Action, Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Settlement Fairness Hearing (the

“Notice”) and the Proof of Claim and Release (the “Proof of Claim”) to be mailed to all potential

Class Members, as determined by Tripath’s stock transfer records and other appropriate sources.

29. The Notice provided that any objections to the Settlement, or to Plaintiff’s Counsel’s

request for an award of attorneys’ fees of up to 25% of the Gross Settlement Fund and

reimbursement of expenses in the approximately $20,000, plus interest earned on such expenses at

the same rate as earned by the Settlement Fund, had to be filed by December 19, 2005.

30. The Court also directed Plaintiff’s Counsel to cause a Summary Notice of Pendency

of Class Action, Proposed Settlement and Settlement Hearing (“Publication Notice”) to be published

in the national edition of Investor’s Business Daily.

31. On December 14, 2005, at plaintiff’s request and pursuant to stipulation, the Court

issued an order resetting some deadlines in connection with class notice and the final settlement

hearing. The Court ordered that Notice to the Class be mailed by December 30, 2005, that the

Publication Notice be published on January 9, 2006, and that requests for exclusions and objections

from the Class be made by February 13, 2006. The Court also reset the hearing on the Settlement

from January 24, 2006 to April 11, 2006.

32. Submitted herewith is the Declaration of Christl Hansman of Gilardi & Co. LLC, the

claims administrator, which attests that Notices were mailed to 9,265 potential Class Members, and

that the Publication Notice was published in the national edition of Investor’s Business Daily on

January 9, 2006, as directed by the Court.



8

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

D. Reaction of the Class to the Settlement

33. The Class overwhelmingly supports the Settlement. While 9,264 Court-approved

Notices were mailed to potential class members, not a single objection (0% of those who received

mailed Notices) to the Settlement or Plan of Allocation has been received. In addition, only four

Class members (or 0.04% of those who received mailed Notices) sought exclusion from the

Settlement.

E. The Litigation Risks

34. Because this action is subject to the provisions of the PSLRA, which made it more

difficult for investors to bring and successfully conclude securities class actions, there are very real

risks that plaintiff’s claims would not survive defendants’ attacks on the pleadings. The proposed

settlement eliminates the risk that plaintiff and the Class would receive no recovery. Even if the

Complaint was found to be adequately pled under the PSLRA, continued prosecution of the action

would be complex, expensive and lengthy, with a more favorable outcome highly uncertain.

Particularly where, as here, defendants have limited funds to satisfy a judgment or contribute to a

settlement, they lacked D&O insurance coverage, and there’s a real probability that the Company

would not continue as a going concern, there are substantial risks that, even if the matter were to

proceed to a trial and a judgment was obtained against defendants, the recovery might be no greater

than the proposed settlement.

IV. FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED IN SUPPORT OF SETTLEMENT

A. Plaintiff’s and Defendants’ Counsel’s Ability to Evaluate the Settlement

35. As a result of their investigation, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel was informed of the

strengths and weaknesses of the claims and defenses and was in a position to appraise the benefits of

a settlement now as opposed to the known (and unknown) risks and expenses of continued litigation,

including the very real possibility that there was no viable source of recovery.

36. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel is actively engaged in complex federal litigation, particularly

the litigation of securities class actions. The experience of Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel in the field

allowed them to identify the complex issues involved in this case and to formulate strategies to



9

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

effectively prosecute this case. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel’s reputation as attorneys who will zealously

carry a meritorious case through trial and appeal, as well as their ability to develop and present the

evidence in this case, gave them strong leverage in obtaining the best result for the Class.

37. Although Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel firmly believe that the claims

asserted against defendants have merit, they have concluded that the Settlement is fair, reasonable,

and in the best interests of the Class. In coming to this conclusion, Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s

Lead Counsel considered, among other things, the substantial and immediate benefits that members

of the Class will receive from the Settlement; the risks associated with proving each element of their

claims; the risk associated with an appeal by defendants if plaintiff won a jury verdict; and the risk

that defendants’ financial condition would prevent a larger recovery, or any recovery at all should

the case continue.

38. In addition, it was anticipated that defendants would file other motions that might

have impacted the Litigation or resolved the Litigation prior to trial. In particular, Lead Plaintiff

believed that defendants would have moved to dismiss the complaint on the issue of scienter and loss

causation and whether plaintiff met the appropriate PSLRA pleading standards.

39. Further, plaintiff risked the possibility that the Litigation would not be certified as a

class action. Even if the Class had been certified, defendants undoubtedly would have reserved their

right to seek modification or decertification of the Class at any time prior to trial.

40. In light of the risks Lead Plaintiff faced, success by Lead Plaintiff was far from

guaranteed. In the estimation of Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel, the compromise embodied in the

Settlement represents an achievement in terms of successful resolution to a complex class action.

B. The Settlement Was Fairly and Aggressively Negotiated by Counsel

41. The principal terms of the Settlement were fairly, honestly and aggressively

negotiated by counsel for all parties.

42. Agreement on the terms of the settlement in principle was followed by vigorous

negotiations over the terms of the Stipulation, which included numerous discussions and exchanges

of drafts of the Stipulation and its Exhibits. Throughout the course of those negotiations, the parties

were represented by counsel with vast experience in litigation in general, and securities class actions



10

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in particular. The Settlement was the result of an adversarial process designed to produce a fair and

honest compromise.

C. Serious Questions of Law and Fact Placed the Likelihood of a More Beneficial Result in Significant Doubt

43. Another factor considered in assessing the merits of class action settlements is

whether serious questions of law and fact exist, placing the ultimate favorable outcome of the

litigation in doubt. This factor also supports the conclusion that the Settlement is fair, reasonable

and adequate to the Class particularly where, as here, there could be reasonable disagreement

regarding loss causation and what portion of the losses incurred by Class members was attributable

to the misstated financial results and what portion was attributable to general market conditions and

other factors unrelated to the fraud alleged.

44. In assessing the merits of the Settlement, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel considered the

factual and legal questions that were disputed, including the issue of the scope of damages.

Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel was aware that many of the defenses that could be asserted by defendants

had some probability of success. These uncertainties, especially when weighed against the tangible

and immediate benefits conferred by the Settlement, placed a more beneficial result in significant

doubt.

45. Plaintiff faced hurdles in litigating this case including the difficult issues of proving

loss causation and scienter, as well as other difficulties proving both liability and damages.

Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel’s damages consultant has estimated a range of potential damages of

approximately $19.8 million. At the time the Settlement Stipulation was entered by the parties,

Tripath’s stock was trading at approximately $0.92 per share. The Settlement of 2,450,000 shares of

Tripath common stock and $200,000 cash at the time the Settlement Stipulation was entered by the

parties represented a recovery of about 12 percent of total potential damages.

46. Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel believes that the Settlement was the best

result that could be achieved under the circumstances, including Defendants’ limited resources and

the lack of insurance coverage. Accordingly, Lead Plaintiff and Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel believes



11

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

that the Settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate in all respects, and should be approved by the

Court.

D. The Judgment of the Parties that the Settlement is Fair and Reasonable Provides Additional Support for the Approval of the Settlement

47. Another factor in considering whether to approve class action settlements is the

judgment of the parties that the settlement is fair and reasonable. The Settlement was the product of

extensive negotiations between adversaries with significant experience in securities class action

litigation.

V. PLAN OF ALLOCATION

48. Pursuant to the Preliminary Approval Order and Order Revising Dates for Class

Notice, and as set forth in the Notice, all Class members who wish to participate in the distribution

of the Net Settlement Fund must submit a valid proof of claim form postmarked on or before

May 29, 2006. As provided in the Stipulation, after deducting all appropriate taxes, administrative

costs, attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses, the balance of the Settlement Fund (i.e., the

Net Settlement Fund”) shall be distributed according to the Plan of Allocation.

49. If approved, the Plan of Allocation will govern how the proceeds of the Net

Settlement Fund will be distributed among Class members who submit timely, valid proof of claim

forms.

50. The Net Settlement Fund will be allocated among all Authorized Claimants (as

defined in the Stipulation) proportionately according to their Recognized Claim (as defined in the

Stipulation) compared to the aggregate claims of all Authorized Claimants. The Plan of Allocation

reflects Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel’s assessment, in consultation with a damages consultant, of the

facts regarding the artificial inflation caused by the alleged misrepresentations and omissions made

during the Class Period and the subsequent decline in Tripath’s stock price during the Class Period

that reasonably could be attributed to the corrective disclosures made up to and including the final

disclosure on June 13, 2005.

51. Because Class members were damaged by different amounts, depending on when

they purchased and/or acquired their Tripath stock, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel has determined, after



12

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

consultation with their damages consultant, that the allowed claims should vary depending on the

date of purchase and whether the shares were held until defendants disclosed the allegedly withheld

information.

52. Specifically, the Plan of Allocation provides that an Authorized Claimant’s

Recognized Claim will be computed as follows.

53. For shares of Tripath common stock purchased during the period between January 29,

2004 and October 18, 2004, inclusive, and

(a) Sold on or before October 18, 2004, an Authorized Claimant shall have no

($0.00) “Recognized Claim”;

(b) Sold during the period from October 19, 2004 through and including October

22, 2004, an Authorized Claimant’s “Recognized Claim” shall mean the lesser of: (i) the purchase

price (including commissions, etc.) less the sales price (net of commissions, etc.), (ii) the purchase

price (including commissions, etc.) less $0.64, or (iii) $0.15;

(c) Sold during the period from October 25, 2004 through and including June 13,

2005, an Authorized Claimant’s “Recognized Claim” shall mean the lesser of: (i) the purchase


price paid (including commissions, etc.) less $0.64, or (iii) $0.90;

(d) Held as of the close of trading on June 13, 2005, an Authorized Claimant's

“Recognized Claim” shall mean the lesser of: (i) the purchase price (including commissions, etc.)

less $0.64, or (ii) $0.92.

54. For shares of Tripath common stock purchased during the period between October 19,

2004 and October 22, 2004, inclusive, and

(a) Sold on or before October 22, 2004, an Authorized Claimant shall have no


(b) Sold during the period from October 25, 2004 through and including June 13,

2004, an Authorized Claimant’s “Recognized Claim” shall mean the lesser of: (i) the purchase


price (including commissions, etc.) less $0.64, or (iii) $0.75;



13

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

(c) Held as of the close of trading on June 13, 2005, an Authorized Claimant's


less $0.64, or (ii) $0.77.

55. For shares of Tripath common stock purchased during the period between October 25,

2005 and June 13, 2005, and

(a) Sold on or before June 13, 2004, an Authorized Claimant shall have no


(b) Held as of the close of trading on June 13, 2005, an Authorized Claimant's


less $0.64, or (ii) $0.02.

56. In the event a Class Member has more than one purchase or sale of Tripath common

stock, all purchases and sales will be matched on a First-In, First-Out (“FIFO”) basis. FIFO is the

most logical and widely-accepted means of determining losses resulting from securities trading. The

FIFO method measures a Class member’s losses only through consideration of the gain or loss on

shares purchased during the Class Period. Under FIFO, each sale of shares is matched to the oldest

shares in an account. Shares sold during the Class Period are first matched to shares held at the

beginning of the Class Period.

57. The FIFO method has been used to calculate losses in connection with claims

administration in hundreds of securities class actions. See, e.g., In re AremisSoft Corp. Sec. Litig.,

210 F.R.D. 109, 127 (D.N.J. 2002); In re Chipcom Corp., No. 95-11114-DPW, 1997 WL 1102329 at

*24 (D. Mass. June 26, 1997); In re Sea Containers Ltd. Class Action Sec. Litig., No. 89-

0930(JGP),1990 WL 99307 at *10 (D.D.C. July 6, 1990).

58. The proposed Plan of Allocation comports with Section 21D(e) of the PSLRA, 15

U.S.C. § 78u-4(e)(1) and (2), by calculating recognized losses in a manner that limits damages to

those caused by the fraud, not unrelated market conditions. No member of the Class is treated

differently under the Plan. Each investor will have his/her/its damages capped pursuant to Section

21D(e).



14

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VI. THE APPLICATION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES

59. The Notice provides that Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel may apply for an award of

attorneys’ fees not to exceed 25% of the Settlement Fund and for reimbursement of their expenses in

the approximate amount of $20,000, plus interest on such expenses at the same rate as earned by the

Settlement Fund.

60. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel seeks an award of attorneys’ fees of 25% of the Settlement

Fund, a percentage that is well within the range of fees awarded in this Circuit and District and by

federal courts in cases of this nature. See, e.g., In re Mego Fin. Corp. Sec. Litig., 213 F.3d 454, 460

(9th Cir. 2000) (affirming award of fees equal to one-third of total recovery); In re Heritage Bond

Litig., MDL Case No. 02-ML-1475 DT, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13555, at *74 (C.D. Cal. June 10,

2005) (approving 33-1/3% of recovery for attorneys’ fees); A.I. Trade Fin., Inc. v. Petra Bank, No.

89 Civ. 7987 (JFK), 1992 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16325 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 22, 1992). The award requested

is for all work performed to date by Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel in connection with this Litigation and

in obtaining approval of the Settlement Fund for the benefit of the Class members.

61. Lead Counsel also seeks reimbursement of $19,192.08 in costs and expenses

advanced by Lead Counsel during the course of this litigation. These expenses are reasonable and

necessarily incurred in connection with the prosecution of the Litigation and should be reimbursed in

all respects.

62. There are no objections to either the attorneys’ fees or reimbursement of expenses.

A. Risk of Non-Payment or Reimbursement of Expenses

63. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel achieved a beneficial result for the Class at great risk and

expense to ourselves. Throughout this Litigation, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel was committed to the

interests of the Class and to investing the full amount of time and resources necessary to bring this

Litigation to a successful conclusion.

64. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel undertook this Litigation on a wholly contingent fee basis.

From the outset, Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel understood that they were embarking on a complex,

expensive, and probably lengthy litigation with no guarantee of ever being compensated for the



15

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

investment of time and money the case would require. In undertaking that responsibility, Plaintiff’s

Lead Counsel was obligated to ensure that sufficient resources were dedicated to the prosecution of

the Litigation, and that funds were available to compensate staff and the considerable out-of-pocket

costs cases such as this one entails.

65. Because of the nature of a contingent practice, where cases typically last several

years, not only do contingent litigation firms have to pay regular overhead, but they have to advance

the expense of litigation. With an average lag time of three to four years for these cases to conclude,

the financial burden on contingent counsel is far greater than on a firm that is paid on an ongoing

basis.

66. Contingent litigation firms also have to consider the possibility of no recovery. As

discussed herein, from the outset, this Litigation presented a number of risks and uncertainties that

could have prevented any recovery.

67. Courts consistently recognize that the risk of non-payment or reimbursement of

expenses is a factor in determining the appropriate fee reward. There are numerous cases where

plaintiff’s counsel in contingent cases such as this, after expending thousands of hours, received no

compensation.

68. As set forth in the accompanying memorandum in support of the award of attorneys’

fees and reimbursement of expenses, an award of 25% is a percentage that is well within the range of

fees awarded in this Circuit and District and by federal courts in cases of this nature.

B. Standing and Caliber of Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel

69. Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel is among the most experienced and skilled practitioners in

the securities litigation field. The Litigation was brought against defendants represented by

outstanding law firms well recognized for their work in defending securities class actions. These

firms were Howard Rice Nemerovski Canady Falk & Rabkin, and Fenwick and West.

C. The Risk of Litigation and Need to Ensure the Availability of Competent Counsel in High, Risk Contingent Securities Cases

70. Prior to the Litigation being filed, plaintiff’s counsel had to consider the risk that it

would be dismissed with prejudice at the pleading stage. Subsequent to the passage of the PSLRA,



16

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

many cases in this Circuit have been dismissed at the pleading stage in response to defendants’

arguments that the complaints do not meet the heightened pleading standards under the PSLRA.

See, e.g., Osher v. JNI Corp., 308 F. Supp. 2d 1168 (S.D. Cal. 2004); In re Lockheed Martin Corp.

Sec. Litig., 272 F. Supp. 2d 944 (C.D. Cal. 2003).

71. Further, the federal appellate reports are filled with opinions affirming dismissals

with prejudice in securities class action litigations. See, e.g., In re Syntex Corp. Sec. Litig., 95 F.3d

922 (9th Cir. 1996); Gompper v. VISX, 298 F.3d 893 (9th Cir. 2002).

72. The many appellate decisions affirming summary judgment and directed verdicts for

defendants also show that surviving a motion to dismiss was no guaranty of recovery. See, e.g., In re

Worlds of Wonder Sec. Litig., 35 F.3d 1407 (9th Cir. 1994); In re Convergent Techs. Sec. Litig., 948

F.2d 507 (9th Cir. 1991).

73. Had the case proceeded to trial, Plaintiff would have had to present the testimony of

damages experts in order to establish that the Class members’ losses were legally recoverable

damages. In recent years, the defendants have become increasingly active in attempting to prevent

experts from delivering testimony and attempting to strike the testimony of Plaintiff’s expert on

damages issues. Even if plaintiff’s damages experts been allowed to testify, defendants would have

undoubtedly secured their own well-credentialed experts. Plaintiff’s experts and defendants’ experts

would inevitably have different assessments as to the existence and amount of damages the Class

suffered. No doubt, defendants’ experts would contend, among other things, that the damages

claimed by plaintiff were grossly inflated and that much, if not all, of the losses suffered by the Class

was due to market conditions and not the alleged wrongdoing. The reaction of a jury to such expert

testimony is highly unpredictable, and it is uncertain whose expert a jury could find more persuasive.

74. Further, the claims in this case would be difficult to establish. Plaintiff’s Lead

Counsel is cognizant of the fact that the only persons with personal knowledge of the facts related to

the claims asserted in the Litigation are certain current or former employees of Tripath. Clearly, few

of these individuals, including the Individual Defendants, were likely to have any interest in assisting

plaintiff. Also, the majority, if not all, of the documents required to prove the case are in defendants’



17

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

possession. In addition, the substantial time between the dates of the relevant events and the date of

any trial in the Litigation creates a difficult burden of proof for plaintiff.

75. Despite the most vigorous and competent efforts, success in contingent litigation,

such as this, is never assured. The riskiness of contingent litigation is shown by the many securities

cases lost on or after trial, including Robbins v. Koger Props., 129 F.3d 617 (11th Cir. 1997)

(overturning an $81 million jury verdict for the plaintiff class on loss causation grounds and

dismissing the entire litigation); Anixter v. Home-Stake Prod. Co., 77 F.3d 1215 (10th Cir. 1996)

(overturning securities fraud class action verdict for plaintiffs filed in 1973 and tried in 1988 on basis

of 1994 Supreme Court opinion); In re Health Mgmt. Sec. Litig., 184 F.R.D. 40 (E.D.N.Y. 1999)

(jury verdict for auditor in securities case); In re Apple Computer Sec. Litig., No. C-84-20148(A)-

JW, 1991 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15608 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 6, 1991) (although plaintiff class obtained a

substantial jury verdict against two individual defendants, district court vacated judgment on motion

for judgment n.o.v.).

76. It takes hard work and diligence by skilled counsel to develop the facts and theories

that are needed to sustain settlement negotiations at meaningful levels. If defendants believe they

will prevail, experience shows that they will litigate to the end. Losses in cases such as those

described above are exceedingly expensive and can threaten the survival of a law firm.

77. Courts have repeatedly held that it is in the public interest to have experienced and

able counsel enforce the securities laws and regulations pertaining to the duties of officers and

directors of public companies. Vigorous private enforcement of the federal securities laws can only

occur if the private plaintiffs can obtain parity in representation with that available to large corporate

interests. If this important public policy is to be carried out, the courts must award fees which will

adequately compensate private plaintiffs’ counsel taking into account the enormous risks undertaken

with a clear view of the economics of a securities class action.

78. When Plaintiff’s Lead Counsel undertook to act as counsel for Lead Plaintiff in this

matter, it was with the knowledge that we would likely spend thousands of hours of hard work

against some of the best defense lawyers with no assurance of ever obtaining any compensation for

our efforts, or even for the overhead of our offices. We are aware that the only way we would be



18

DOCS\345563v2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

compensated was if we achieved a successful result. The benefits conferred by the Settlement are

noteworthy in that a settlement fund of 2,450,000 shares of Tripath common stock and $200,000 in

cash was obtained for the Class despite substantial risks.

VII. CONCLUSION

79. For the reasons set forth above and in the accompanying memoranda in support of

final approval of the Settlement and Plan of Allocation, and in support of the Application for Award

of Attorneys’ Fees and Reimbursement of Expenses, I respectfully submit that: (i) the Settlement is

fair, reasonable and adequate and should be approved; (ii) the Plan of Allocation represents a fair

method for the distribution of the Net Settlement Fund among Authorized Claimants and should be

approved; and (iii) the application for attorneys’ fees and reimbursement of expenses should be

granted.

The above is true to my personal knowledge and if called to do so I could and would testify

competently thereto. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the above is true and correct. Executed this 6th day of March, 2006, at New York,

New York.

/s/ JEFF S. WESTERMAN JEFF S. WESTERMAN


EXHIBIT A


DECLARATION OF JEFF S. WESTERMAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES & EXPENSES ON BEHALF OFMILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP

DOCS\347218v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

OAKLAND DIVISION

In re TRIPATH TECHNOLOGY, INC., SECURITIES LITIGATION This Document Relates To: ALL ACTIONS

))))))))))))

Case No. C-04-4681 SBA DECLARATION OF JEFF S. WESTERMAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES AND EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP

DATE: April 11, 2006 TIME: 1:00 p.m. CTRM: Hon. Saundra B. Armstrong

I, Jeff S. Westerman, declare as follows:

1. I am a member of the law firm of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP. I

submit this declaration in support of my firm’s application for an award of attorneys’ fees in

connection with services rendered in this case, as well as the reimbursement of expenses incurred

by my firm in connection with this litigation.

2. My firm acted as Lead Counsel in this class action. The tasks undertaken by my firm

can be summarized in detail in the Declaration of Jeff S. Westerman in Support of Final Approval of

Settlement; Approval of Plan of Distribution; and Award of Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses.

3. The schedule attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a detailed summary indicating the amount of

time, by category, spent by the partners, attorneys and professional support staff of my firm who were

involved in this litigation, and the lodestar calculation based on my firm’s current billing rates. For

personnel who are no longer employed by my firm, the lodestar calculation is based upon the billing

rates for such personnel in his or her final year of employment by my firm. The schedule was

prepared from contemporaneous, daily time records regularly prepared and maintained by my firm,

which are available at the request of the Court. Time expended in preparing this application for fees

and reimbursement of expenses has not been included in this request.


2 DECLARATION OF JEFF S. WESTERMAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT PETITION

FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES & EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF MILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP DOCS\347218v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. The hourly rates for the partners, attorneys and professional support staff in my firm

included in Exhibit 1 are the same as the regular current rates charged for their services in non-

contingent matters and/or which have been accepted and approved in other securities or shareholder

litigation.

5. The total number of hours expended on this litigation by my firm is 720.95 hours. The

total lodestar for my firm is $245,116.75, consisting of 298.75 hours for attorneys’ time and 422.20

hours for professional support staff time. We expect to incur approximately 25 additional hours in

connection with finalizing the settlement in this litigation, which are not included in the attached

lodestar report.

6. My firm’s lodestar figures are based upon the firm’s billing rates, which rates do not

include charges for expense items. Expense items are billed separately and such charges are not

duplicated in my firm’s billing rates.

7. As detailed in Exhibit 2, my firm has incurred a total of $19,192.08 in un-reimbursed

expenses in connection with the prosecution of this litigation. We expect to incur approximately $800

in additional expenses in connection with finalizing the settlement in this litigation, which are not

included in the attached expense report.

8. The expenses incurred in this action are reflected on the books and records of my firm.

These books and records are prepared from expense vouchers, check records and other source materials

and represent an accurate recordation of the expenses incurred.

9. With respect to the standing of counsel in this case, attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a copy

of our firm resume.

The above is true to my personal knowledge and if called to do so I could and would testify

competently thereto. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of

America that the above is true and correct. Executed this 6th day of March, 2006, at New York,

New York.

/s/ JEFF S. WESTERMAN JEFF S. WESTERMAN


DECLARATION OF JEFF S. WESTERMAN IN SUPPORT OF JOINT PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS’ FEES & EXPENSES ON BEHALF OFMILBERG WEISS BERSHAD & SCHULMAN LLP

DOCS\347218v1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 1

Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP

TIME REPORT — Inception through December 13, 2005

Name Total

Hours Hourly Rate

Total Lodestar

PARTNERS: George A. Bauer III 9.00 $600 $5,400.00 David J. Bershad 4.00 $795 $3,180.00 Wai Y. Chan 3.00 $460 $1,380.00 Anita B. Kartalopoulos 1.25 $500 $625.00 Steven G. Schulman 0.50 $725 $362.50 Peter Seidman 2.00 $425 $850.00 Jeff S. Westerman 20.75 $630 $13,072.50 ASSOCIATES: Paul J. Andrejkovics 5.75 $390 $2,242.50 Michael Friedman 1.00 $285 $285.00 Sharon Lee 12.75 $355 $4,526.25 Elizabeth P. Lin 137.50 $400 $55,000.00 John J. Mills 78.00 $365 $28,470.00 Andrei Rado 21.00 $370 $7,770.00 CONTRACT ATTORNEY: Cheryl Williams 2.25 $255 $573.75 PROFESSIONAL SUPPORT STAFF: Paralegals 102.50 $185-$240 $24,022.50 Investigator 126.50 $360-$425 $45,800.00 Library Staff 13.50 $145-$220 $2,842.50 Document Clerks 2.20 $240 $528.00 Economic Analyst 8.75 $315 $2,756.25 Word Processors 3.50 $60 $210.00 Forensic Accountant 43.25 $360 $15,570.00 Shareholder Division 115.50 $225-$250 $27,402.50 Analyst 6.50 $240-$365 $2,247.50 TOTAL LODESTAR: 720.95 245,116.75




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 2

Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP

EXPENSE REPORT — Inception through December 13, 2005 Categories: Amount Photocopies/Reproduction/Printing $2,430.50 Postage/Notice Costs $12,684.71 Messengers/Express Services $370.57 Filing/Witness Fees $1,338.94 Lexis/Westlaw/Legal Research $1,412.17 Experts/Consultants $174.00 Meals, Hotels & Transportation $631.19 Facsimile Charges $150.00 TOTAL EXPENSES: $19,192.08




1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

EXHIBIT 3

[this page intentionally left blank]


Firm Résumé 1

Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP THE FIRM’S PRACTICE, ACHIEVEMENTS AND ATTORNEY BIOGRAPHIES

Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP is the most respected and effective plaintiff law firm in the United States. Founded in 1965, the Firm now has more than 120 lawyers, with principal offices in New York City and additional offices in Boca Raton, Florida; Wilmington, Delaware; Washington, D.C.; and Los Angeles, California. The Firm’s practice focuses on the prosecution of class and complex actions in many fields of commercial litigation, emphasizing securities, corporate fiduciary, consumer, insurance, healthcare, antitrust, mass tort, human rights, and related areas of litigation.

In the Firm’s early years, its founding partners, Lawrence Milberg and Melvyn I. Weiss, built a new area of legal practice in representing shareholders’ interests under the then recently amended federal procedure Rule 23, which allowed securities fraud cases, among others, to proceed as class actions. In the following decades, the Firm’s lawyers obtained decisions that established important legal precedents in many of their areas of practice, and prosecuted cases that set benchmarks in terms of case theories, organization, discovery, trial results, methods of settlement, and amounts recovered and distributed to clients and class members.

Important milestones included the Firm’s involvement in the U.S. Financial litigation in the early 1970s, one of the earliest large class actions, which resulted in the recovery of over $50 million by purchasers of the securities of a failed real estate development company; the Ninth Circuit decision in Blackie v. Barrack in 1975, which established the fraud-on-the-market doctrine for securities fraud actions; co-lead counsel position in the In re Washington Public Power Supply System (WPPSS) Securities Litigation, a seminal securities fraud action in the 1980s in terms of complexity and amounts recovered; representation of the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. in a year-long trial to recover banking losses from a major accounting firm, leading to a precedent-setting global settlement; attacking the Drexel-Milken “daisy chain” of illicit junk-bond financing arrangements with numerous cases that resulted in substantial recoveries for investors; representing life insurance policyholders defrauded by “vanishing premium” and other improper sales tactics and obtaining large recoveries from industry participants; and ground-breaking roles in the multi-front attack on deception and other improper activities in the tobacco industry.

Milberg Weiss remains at the forefront in its areas of practice. Recently, it has obtained eve-of-trial settlements totaling $460 million in the Raytheon securities fraud litigation, representing the lead plaintiff New York State Common Retirement Fund; settled lawsuits by physician and medical association clients against CIGNA Healthcare and Aetna, which brought benefits in excess of $900 million and sweeping changes to the industry; and continued its work as a lead counsel in broad-based multi-defendant actions concerning misconduct in connection with IPOs and mutual funds.

The Firm also has a general corporate and securities practice representing privately and publicly held corporations in the areas of capital formation, mergers and acquisitions, and other commercial transactions.

The Firm is consistently active in pro bono litigation, highlighted by its leadership role in cases leading to recoveries of some $6 billion from Swiss and German banks and companies to benefit victims of the Holocaust and its recent efforts representing claimants of the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund.

The Firm’s lawyers come from many different professional backgrounds. They include former federal or state prosecutors, private defense attorneys, and government lawyers. The Firm’s ability to pursue all types of fraud is augmented by its 16-person team of investigators, headed by a former agent for the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and its four full-time forensic accountants.

In 2003, the partners of Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP decided to separate into two groups, with Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP serving as the continuing Firm.

Milberg Weiss has been responsible for more than $45 billion in recoveries during the life of the Firm. Examples of cases in which the Firm has taken lead roles include the WPPSS litigation, which resulted in settlements totaling $775 million; the Lincoln Savings and Loan Litigation, with total recoveries of $240 million out of $288 million in estimated total losses; the NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, which resulted in a $1.027 billion settlement; and actions against major life insurers, including Prudential and MetLife, where the Firm has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of policyholders who were the victims of alleged churning and other improper practices. In the securities fraud arena, the Firm’s recent successes include Raytheon, Oxford Health Plans (settlements totaling $300 million), and Lucent Technologies ($600 million


Firm Résumé 2

settlement). In addition, the Firm currently plays major roles in the litigation arising from the two largest scandals in the financial community -- the IPO Securities Litigation, in which the Firm serves as Chair of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, and the Mutual Funds Litigation, in which the Firm is Co-Chair of Plaintiffs’ Counsel’s Steering Committee.

The Firm also has leadership positions in many important non-securities cases throughout the country, including its representation of physician groups in the Managed Care Litigation discussed above, and its lead counsel role in the landmark In re Walt Disney Derivative Litigation case, which has redefined the fiduciary duties of directors in public companies. For more information, please visit www.milbergweiss.com.

JUDICIAL COMMENDATIONS In In re September 11 Victim Compensation Fund, Preliminary Hearing, Claim No. 212-003658 (Dec. 9 2003),

Special Master Kenneth R. Feinberg stated the following regarding the Firm’s commitment to the public interest: Let me say one more thing on the record before we adjourn, and please convey this to Mr. Weiss and to David Bershad. Once again, as I have learned over the years here in New York, the Milberg Weiss firm steps up to the plate in the public interest time and time again. The social conscience of the Milberg Weiss firm, acting through its excellent associates and partners, help deal with crises that confront the American people and others, and I am personally in the debt of Milberg Weiss for the work that it is doing, even under the gun with the December 22 deadline looming. I am once again in Milberg Weiss’ debt for their extraordinary willingness to help out in the public interest, and I hope you’ll relay that message back to the firm... they are second among none in terms of the public interest, and I’m very, very grateful, not only to you guys for doing this, but... for the firm’s willingness to help out. I wanted to let everybody know that.

Mr. Feinberg echoed this sentiment in a subsequent hearing (September 11th Victim Compensation Fund Hearing before Special Master Kenneth R. Feinberg, May 11, 2004):

I also note on the record that the pro bono service of the Milberg Weiss firm is well-known to lawyers and the public throughout the nation, and I’m grateful that this is one more example of how Milberg Weiss serves the nation.

I want to note on the record the extraordinary professionalism and skill of counsel in the preparation of this claim. They have exhibited the finest character of the Bar, and I thank them for a job well done.

Milberg Weiss has been commended by countless judges all over the country for the quality of its representation in class action lawsuits. In In re Rite Aid Corp. Securities Litigation, 269 F. Supp. 2d 603, 611 (E.D. Pa. 2003), Judge Dalzell commented on the skill and efficiency of Milberg Weiss attorneys in litigating the complex case:

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, we pause to say a specific word about… the skill and efficiency of the attorneys involved…Milberg Weiss [was] extraordinarily deft and efficient in handling this most complex matter… they were at least eighteen months ahead of the United States Department of Justice in ferreting out the conduct that ultimately resulted in the write-down of over $1.6 billion in previously reported Rite Aid earnings… In short, it would be hard to equal the skill class counsel demonstrated here.

In In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 00 CV-621, slip op. at 14-15, 26 (D.N.J. Feb. 24, 2004), Judge Joel A. Pisano of the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey recently issued an Opinion approving the Settlement of the Lucent Technologies Securities Litigation, in which he complimented Milberg Weiss (Co-Lead Counsel for the Plaintiff Class) saying:

[T]he attorneys representing the Plaintiffs are highly experienced in securities class action litigation and have successfully prosecuted numerous class actions throughout the United States. They are more than competent to conduct this action. Co-Lead Counsel diligently and aggressively represented Plaintiffs before this Court and in the negotiations that resulted in the Settlement . . . the efforts and ingenuity of Lead Plaintiffs and Lead Counsel resulted in an extremely valuable Settlement for the Benefit of the Class.

In In re IKON Office Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, 194 F.R.D. 166, 195 (E.D. Pa. 2000), where Milberg Weiss served as co-lead counsel, Judge Marvin Katz of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania commented on the skill and professionalism of plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel:

First, class counsel is of high caliber and has extensive experience in similar class action litigation… Each of the co-lead counsel firms has a national reputation for advocacy in securities class actions, and there is no doubt that this standing enhanced their ability both to prosecute the case effectively and to negotiate credibly. Similarly,


Firm Résumé 3

defense counsel has a fine reputation and has displayed great skill in defending this complex class action. Their opposition to plaintiffs has been anything but token, and many of the battles on crucial issues were hard fought.

Of particular note in assessing the quality of representation is the professionalism with which all parties comported themselves. The submissions were of consistently high quality, and class counsel has been notably diligent in preparing filings in a timely manner even when under tight deadlines. This professionalism was also displayed in class counsel’s willingness to cooperate with other counsel when appropriate… This cooperation enabled the parties to focus their disputes on the issues that mattered most and to avoid pointless bickering over more minor matters.

In In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, 187 F.R.D. 465, 474 (S.D.N.Y. 1998), in an opinion dated November 9, 1998, approving settlements totaling over $1.027 billion, Judge Sweet commented:

Counsel for the Plaintiffs [Milberg Weiss] are preeminent in the field of class action litigation, and the roster of counsel for Defendants includes some of the largest, most successful and well regarded law firms in the country. It is difficult to conceive of better representation than the parties in this action achieved.

In In re Prudential Insurance Co. of America Sales Practices Litigation, 962 F. Supp. 572, 585-86 (D.N.J. 1997), vacated on other grounds, in approving the settlement of a nationwide class action against a life insurer for deceptive sales practices, where Milberg Weiss was co-lead counsel, Judge Wolin observed:

[T]he results achieved by plaintiffs’ counsel in this case in the face of significant legal, factual and logistical obstacles and formidable opposing counsel, are nothing short of remarkable.

* * * Finally, the standing and professional skill of plaintiffs’ counsel, in particular Co-Lead Counsel, is high and undoubtedly furthered their ability to negotiate a valuable settlement and argue its merits before this Court. Several members of plaintiffs’ counsel are leading attorneys in the area of class action litigation.

At the Fairness Hearing, Judge Wolin stated that “there is no doubt that Class Counsel have prosecuted the interests of the class members with the utmost vigor and expertise.” In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litigation, 962 F. Supp. 450, 519 (D.N.J. 1997) (emphasis added).

In approving a $100 million settlement in In re Prudential Securities Inc. Partnership Litigation, 912 F. Supp. 97, 101 (S.D.N.Y. 1996), in which Milberg Weiss was one of the lead counsel, Judge Pollack noted that he had “had the opportunity at first hand to observe the quality of plaintiffs’ class counsel’s representation, both here and in prior complex litigation, and is impressed with the quality of Plaintiffs’ Class Counsel.”

In Roy v. The Independent Order of Foresters, Civ. No. 97-6225 (SKC) at 32 (D.N.J. Aug. 3, 1999), in his opinion on class certification, Judge Chesler noted:

The firm of Milberg Weiss, which is co-lead counsel for the plaintiff, was also counsel for the plaintiff class in the Prudential case. Thus, the adequacy of the plaintiff’s representation is beyond reproach. Furthermore, the tremendous and unprecedented settlements which the Milberg firm has helped to secure for the plaintiff classes in both this case and the Prudential case are a testament to counsel’s vigorous pursuit of the class interests.

In In re Buspirone Patent Litigation, MDL Docket No. 1413 at 34:2-3 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 6, 2003) (Final Approval Hearing Transcript), Judge Koeltl commented on plaintiffs’ counsel:

Let me say that the lawyers in this case have done a stupendous job.

In Kruman v. Christie’s International, PLC, 00 Civ. 6322 (LAK) at 36:13-16 (S.D.N.Y. June 2, 2003) (Final Approval Hearing Transcript), Judge Kaplan commented on class counsel’s representation:

I have satisfied myself in examining these papers that counsel involved in this case pursued this very difficult matter tenaciously, with skill, and got what I view to be an excellent result.

NOTEWORTHY CLIENTS Countless individual investors, funds and institutions are represented by Milberg Weiss including:

• The New York State and Local Retirement System. Milberg Weiss was selected by former New York State Comptroller H. Carl McCall and current comptroller Alex G. Hevesi to serve as one of the firms acting as special counsel for securities class action and derivative litigation. Milberg Weiss is currently representing the N.Y. State Common Retirement Fund in substantial securities fraud actions against Bayer AG, the Raytheon Corp. and Chubb.


Firm Résumé 4

• The State of New Jersey Pension Fund. Milberg Weiss was competitively selected by the Treasurer of the State of New Jersey to represent the state’s $86 billion pension fund in its securities litigation against Sears Roebuck & Co. New Jersey was appointed lead plaintiff and Milberg Weiss lead counsel, after hard-fought motion practice.

• State of Ohio. In October 2003, the Firm was appointed special securities litigation counsel for the State of Ohio by the Attorney General. Currently, the Firm is representing the Ohio Tuition Trust Authority in the Putnam Mutual Fund litigation currently pending in the District of Maryland.

• Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Milberg Weiss was competitively selected as panel counsel by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s State Employees’ Retirement System, a $28 billion dollar fund.

• The Teachers’ Retirement System of The State of Illinois. This $22 billion dollar pension fund appointed Milberg Weiss to serve as monitoring and securities litigation counsel.

• Ontario Public Service Employees Union Pension Trust Fund (“OPTrust”). Milberg Weiss is representing OPTrust as Lead Plaintiff in a securities fraud action against Nortel involving accounting fraud and other related misrepresentations.

• SEIU Local 144 Nursing Home Pension Fund and Hotel Front Insurance Fund. Milberg Weiss has represented these combined funds in several securities class actions, including actions against Procter & Gamble Company and Microstrategy, Inc., which settled for $48 million and $155 million, respectively.

• The Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation. Milberg Weiss represented the FDIC in claims arising out of the failure of the Butcher brothers’ Tennessee banking empire. The case ultimately settled for $425 million after a full jury trial as part of a massive global settlement among the FDIC, RTC and Ernst & Whinney.

• The West Virginia Employer - Teamsters Joint Counsel No. 84 Pension Trust and Locals 175 and 505 Pension Trust. Milberg Weiss has recently represented these Taft-Hartley pension funds as Lead Plaintiff in the Lucent Technologies Corp. Securities Litigation, which settled for $600 million.

• The Firm represented IBM Corporation with Cravath, Swaine & Moore in class and derivative suits asserted against IBM in New York courts. The derivative litigation has been dismissed and the class litigation was defeated on a motion for summary judgment, thereafter sustained on appeal.

• In addition, the Firm has represented individuals, governmental entities and major corporations including CBS Corporation; T.V. Azteca, Mexico’s second largest television network; Phar-Mor, Inc., formerly a nationwide discount pharmacy chain, and others in complex financial litigation.

PROMINENT CASES

• In re Lucent Technologies, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 00cv621 (AJL) (D.N.J.). This settlement provides compensation of $600 million to aggrieved shareholders who purchased Lucent stock between October 1999 and December 2000.

• In re Raytheon Securities Litigation, 99 CV 12142 (E.D. Mass.). This case concerned claims that a major defense contractor failed to write down assets adequately on long term construction contracts. In May 2004, Raytheon and its auditor PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP settled for a total of $460 million.

• Milberg Weiss served as co-lead counsel in In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL Dkt. No. 1222 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y.), in which settlements totaling $300 million in cash were approved by the Court in June 2003. Plaintiffs alleged that Oxford Health Plans, Inc. issued fraudulent financial statements that misstated its premium revenues and medical claims expense. KPMG LLP, Oxford’s outside auditor, was

also named as a defendant and was alleged to have issued a materially false and misleading audit opinion on Oxford’s financial statements for the year ended December 31, 1996.

• In In re Rite Aid Securities Litigation, Master File No. 99-1349 (E.D. Pa.), Judge Stewart Dalzell approved class action settlements totaling $334 million against Rite Aid ($207 million), KPMG ($125 million -- the second largest amount ever recovered from an accounting firm in a federal securities class action, and the largest ever against an auditor in a case where the securities claims were limited to claims under section 10(b), which requires proof of knowing or reckless misconduct), and certain former executives of Rite Aid ($1.6 million).

• In re Scheiner v. i2 Technologies, Inc., Civ. No. 3:01-CV-418-H (N.D. Tex.). May 2004 settlement of $84.85 million with i2 Technologies and certain individual defendants. Case alleged securities fraud


Firm Résumé 5

against defendants relating to company’s software product descriptions and alleged violations of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles.

• In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 21 MC 92 (S.D.N.Y.). The Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation consists of 309 separate class actions involving more than 300 IPOs marketed between 1998 and 2000. The actions are coordinated for pre-trial purposes before U.S. District Court Judge Shira A. Scheindlin in the Southern District of New York. The defendants consist of the companies brought public, certain of their officers and directors and 55 of the investment banks that brought them public and underwrote various follow-on offerings. The lawsuits generally allege that the IPOs of these companies were manipulated by the investment banks to artificially inflate the market price of those securities and to conceal the amounts of compensation actually received by the underwriters and that these efforts were not disclosed to the investing public. A proposed settlement between plaintiffs and the issuer defendants and their directors and officers has been preliminarily approved by the Court. The settlement would guarantee a recovery of at $1 billion dollars for the settlement classes. The $1 billion guarantee is subject to reduction by potential recoveries from the 55 Underwriter Defendants against whom the litigation continues. Recently, Judge Scheindlin granted plaintiffs’ motions for class certification in six class actions against the Underwriter Defendants, which were selected to serve as test cases.

• In In re Mutual Funds, Milberg Weiss has been appointed as the co-chair of the plaintiffs’ counsel’s steering committee, which is responsible for prosecuting this ground-breaking litigation involving timing and late trading allegations against (and on behalf of) more than 16 mutual fund families and affiliated entities. Pursuant to an order by the Panel for Multidistrict Litigation, these cases are proceeding before four judges in the District of Maryland. As co-chair, Milberg Weiss is responsible for overseeing a steering committee comprised of approximately 10 firms which are working together to prosecute this highly complex litigation.

• The Firm was lead counsel in In re Prudential Insurance Co. Sales Practice Litigation, Civ. No. 95-4707 (AMW) (D.N.J.), a landmark case which concerned securities claims as well as common law claims and which resulted in a recovery exceeding $4 billion for Prudential policyholders. The settlement was approved in a comprehensive decision handed down by the Third Circuit. Milberg Weiss has led the litigation of numerous other class actions involving alleged churning practices by other insurance companies and their agents, recovering billions of dollars in actions against major insurers, including MetLife, American

Express/IDS, New York Life, ManuLife and John Hancock.

• In In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1023 (S.D.N.Y.), Milberg Weiss served as court-appointed co-lead counsel for a class of investors. The class alleged that the NASDAQ market-makers set and maintained wide spreads pursuant to an industry-wide conspiracy in one of the largest and most important antitrust cases in recent history. After three and one half years of intense litigation, the case was settled for a total of $1.027 billion, the largest antitrust settlement ever.

• In re Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation, MDL 551 (D. Ariz.). A massive litigation in which Milberg Weiss served as co-lead counsel for a class that obtained settlements totaling $775 million after several months of trial.

• In In re American Continental Corp./Lincoln Savings & Loan Securities Litigation, MDL 834 (D. Ariz.), Milberg Weiss served as the court-appointed co-lead counsel for a class of persons who purchased debentures and/or stock in American Continental Corp., the parent company of the now-infamous Lincoln Savings & Loan. The suit charged Charles Keating, other insiders, three major accounting firms, three major law firms, Drexel Burnham, Michael Milken and others with racketeering and violations of securities laws. Recoveries totaled $240 million on $288 million in losses. A jury also rendered verdicts of more than $1 billion against Keating and others.

• In re Exxon Valdez, No. A89-095 Civ. (D. Alaska) and In re Exxon Valdez Oil Spill Litigation, 3 AN-89-2533 (Alaska Super. Ct. 3d Jud. Dist.). Milberg Weiss is a member of the Plaintiffs’ Coordinating Committee and co-chair of Plaintiffs’ Law Committee in the massive litigation resulting from the Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska in March 1989. A jury verdict of $5 billion was obtained and is currently on appeal.

• In In re Managed Care Litigation, MDL 1334 (S.D. Fla.). Final approval of a settlement between a nationwide class of physicians and defendant CIGNA Healthcare valued in excess of $500 million dollars was granted on April 22, 2004. A similar settlement valued in excess of $400 million involving a nationwide class of physicians and Aetna was approved by the Court on November 6, 2003. The settlements stem from a series of lawsuits filed in both state and federal court by physicians and medical associations currently pending against many of the nation’s largest for-profit health insurers arising from conduct involving issues dating back to 1990. These settlements bring sweeping changes to the health care industry and involve improvements to physician-related business practices


Firm Résumé 6

and provide for the establishment of an independent foundation dedicated to improving the quality of health care in America.

• In re Baldwin United Annuity Litigation, No. M-21-35 (S.D.N.Y.). Milberg Weiss served as co-lead counsel in this consolidated proceeding on behalf of purchasers of annuities that was settled for over $160 million.

• In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 00-473-A (E.D. Va.). Milberg Weiss served as co-lead counsel in this action, which alleged securities fraud based on a massive restatement. Settlements with the defendants totaled in excess of $150 million.

• In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation (No. 98-8258) (S.D. Fla) Milberg Weiss acted as co-lead counsel for the class. Plaintiffs alleged that Sunbeam, its auditor, and its management engaged in a massive accounting fraud which led to a restatement of over three years of previously reported financial results. The Court approved a combined settlement of over $140 million. The settlement amount included a $110 million settlement with Arthur Andersen, LLP, Sunbeam’s auditor. The Andersen settlement is one of the largest amounts ever paid by a public accounting firm to settle claims brought under the federal securities laws. The settlement with the individuals was achieved on the eve of trial, and ended almost four years of litigation against Andersen and Sunbeam’s insiders, including Albert Dunlap, Sunbeam’s former Chairman and CEO. The settlement included a personal contribution from Dunlap of $15 million.

• In In re Computer Associates Securities Litigation, Nos. 98-CV-4839, 02-CV-1226 (TCP) (E.D.N.Y.), Milberg Weiss served as co-lead counsel and obtained a pretrial settlement valued at over $134 million in these securities fraud class actions.

• In In re IKON Office Solutions, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL 1318, Docket No. 98-4286 (E.D. Pa.), Milberg Weiss served as co-lead counsel and obtained a pretrial settlement of $111 million in this securities fraud class action.

• In In re W.R. Grace & Co. (Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants v. Sealed Air. Corp. and Official Committee of Asbestos Personal Injury Claimants v. Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc.), Nos. 02-2210 and 02-2211 (D. Del.), Milberg Weiss acted as lead counsel for the asbestos personal injury and property damage committees in two separate fraudulent conveyance actions within the W.R. Grace bankruptcy. The actions sought to return the assets of Sealed Air Corporation and Fresenius Medical Care Holdings (each of which had been Grace subsidiaries pre-bankruptcy) to the W.R. Grace bankruptcy estate. Complaints in both cases were filed in mid-March 2002,

and agreements in principle in both cases were reached on November 27, 2002, the last business day before trial was set to begin in the Sealed Air matter. The total of the two settlements, which consisted of both cash and stock, was approximately $1 billion.

• In re Kruman v. Christie’s International, PLC, 284 No. 01-7309 (S.D.N.Y.), resulted in the first U.S. Court of Appeals holding that antitrust class actions on behalf of all purchasers injured worldwide can be brought in U.S. courts under U.S. law when an antitrust conspiracy has sufficient effects in the U.S. Decided in March 2002; led to successful settlement in 2003 of claims against Christie’s and Sotheby’s on behalf of purchasers and sellers at auctions outside the U.S.

• In re Tyco International Ltd., Securities Litigation, MDL Docket No. 02-1335-B (D.N.H.). Milberg Weiss is co-lead counsel in this litigation, which involves claims under the Securities Act of 1933 and the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 against Tyco and its former CEO, CFO, general counsel and certain former directors that arise out of Tyco’s $5.8 billion overstatement of income and $900 million in insider trading, plus hundreds of millions of dollars looted by insiders motivated to commit the fraud. Claims are also made under the 1933 and 1934 Acts against PricewaterhouseCoopers, LLP, which is alleged to have published false audit opinions on Tyco’s financial statements during the Class Period and to have failed to audit Tyco properly, despite knowledge of the fraud. In October 2004, the Court sustained the vast majority of plaintiffs’ claims against Tyco and its former senior officers (Dennis Kozlowski, Mark Swartz, Mark Belnick and Frank Walsh), with the exception of one director, as well as Tyco’s auditor, PwC.

• In re Nortel Networks Corp. Securities Litigation, Civ. No. 01-CV-1855-RMB (S.D.N.Y.). This federal securities fraud class action was commenced in February 2001 against Nortel Networks Corp. and certain of its officers and directors. In February 2002, Milberg Weiss was appointed to serve as sole Lead Counsel for the Class and for the Court-appointed Lead Plaintiff, the Trustees of the Ontario Public Service Employees’ Union Pension Plan Trust Fund. In January 2003, the Court sustained the Complaint in its entirety, denying defendants’ motion to dismiss and, in September 2003, certified a Class. In certifying the Class, the Court specifically rejected defendants’ argument that those who traded in Nortel securities on the Toronto Stock Exchange (and not the New York Stock Exchange) should be excluded from the Class. The Second Circuit denied defendants’ attempted appeal.

• In re Xerox Securities Litigation, No. 3:99-CV-2374 (AWT) (D. Conn.) and Carlson v. Xerox Corp., No. 3:00-CV-1621 (AWT) (D. Conn.). Milberg Weiss was


Firm Résumé 7

appointed co-lead counsel in both of these cases. The first case was brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Xerox common stock from October 22, 1998 (when Xerox first claimed that it was benefiting from a restructuring) through October 7, 1999 (when Xerox finally disclosed the massive problems with the restructuring that affected its operations and the impact of these problems on its revenues) and alleged misrepresentations regarding Xerox’s restructuring. The second case was brought on behalf of a class of purchasers of Xerox common stock from February 17, 1998 through June 28, 2002 and alleged misrepresentations and failure to disclose massive accounting improprieties. As a result of these alleged accounting improprieties, on June 28, 2002 (the last day of the Class Period), Xerox issued a $6.4 billion restatement of equipment sales revenues booked over a five year period.

• In re The Walt Disney Company Derivative Litigation, C.A. No. 15452 (Del. Ch., New Castle County). Challenge to Employment Agreement which Board of Directors never reviewed or approved and to payment of severance package without Board oversight. This action is currently being tried in the Delaware Chancery Court.

• Milberg Weiss is prosecuting numerous class actions involving a major area of investment abuse: deceptive sales of deferred annuity tax shelters to investors for placement in retirement plans that are already tax-qualified. In Nelson v. Pacific Life Ins. Co., No. CV203-131 (S.D. Ga.) the district court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss and discovery is underway. In American United Life Insurance Co. v. Douglas, No. 29A02-0304-CV-350 (Ind. Ct. App.), denial of defendant’s summary judgment motion was sustained on interlocutory appeal. The SEC and NASD have begun regulatory programs to address these problems.

• Milberg Weiss is co-lead counsel in In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, 02 Civ. 5571 (RJH), a securities fraud class action on behalf of U.S. and foreign investors who purchased Vivendi ordinary shares or American Depository Shares. Plaintiffs allege that Vivendi embarked on a $77 billion acquisition spree in order to transform itself into a huge international conglomerate. Throughout the Class Period (October 30, 2000 through August 14, 2002), defendants (and in particular, Vivendi’s former CEO and Chairman, Jean-Marie Messier, and Vivendi’s former CFO, Guillaume Hannezo) reported strong revenue and earnings, and portrayed Vivendi as a company that was generating sufficient cash flow to satisfy its debt obligations on approximately $21 billion in debt that it had amassed in

connection with financing its acquisition binge. However, plaintiffs allege that Vivendi’s operations and financial condition were much weaker than what their public statements portrayed. Plaintiffs have already defeated defendants’ motions to dismiss the complaint, and are in the midst of discovery that will take place in the U.S. and France (where French regulators are conducting their own formal investigations).

• Rabi Abdullahi v. Pfizer, Inc., 01 Civ. 8118 (WHP), (S.D.N.Y.). This is a case in which the Firm has brought claims under the Alien Tort Claims act on behalf of Nigerian children and their families who were enrolled in a clinical trial of a drug by Pfizer without their knowledge. Plaintiff alleges that Pfizer’s conduct violated the international prohibition on medical experimentation without informed consent when children suffering from meningitis, whose families had brought them to a local hospital for treatment, were secretly enrolled in a clinical trial of the Pfizer drug, Trovan. Plaintiff survived a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. The action was then dismissed on forum non-conveniens grounds but the Second Circuit vacated that decision. The case is now back before the trial court.

• In In re General Instrument Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 01-3051 (LR) (E.D. Pa.), Milberg Weiss served as co-lead counsel and obtained a pretrial settlement of $48 million in this securities fraud class action.

• In re Triton Energy Limited Securities Litigation, Civil Action No. 5-98-CV-256 (E.D. Tex. Texarkana Division), settled for $42 million. Plaintiffs alleged that defendants misrepresented, among other things, the nature, quality, classification and quantity of Triton’s Southeast Asia oil and gas reserves during the period March 30, 1998 through July 17, 1998.

• In Andrews v. AT&T, No. CV 191-175 (S.D. Ga.). The Firm represented a class of persons who paid for premium-billed “900-number” calls that involved allegedly deceptive games of chance, starting in 1993. Defendants included major long-distance companies, which approved the call programs and billed for the calls. Defendant MCI settled for $60 million in benefits; the class against AT&T was decertified on appeal and the Firm prosecuted the individual plaintiffs’ claims, obtaining a jury verdict in 2003 for compensatory and punitive damages.


Firm Résumé 8

PRECEDENT-SETTING DECISIONS

Milberg Weiss has consistently been a leader in developing the law for investors and consumers under the federal securities, antitrust and consumer protection laws. The Firm has represented individual and institutional plaintiffs in hundreds of class action litigations in federal and state courts throughout the country. In most of those cases, Milberg Weiss has served as lead or co-lead counsel for the class. The Firm has also been responsible for establishing many important precedents, including:

• Blackie v. Barrack, 524 F.2d 891 (9th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 429 U.S. 816 (1976). This is the seminal appellate decision on the use of the “fraud-on-the-market” theory, allowing investors who purchase stock at artificially inflated prices to recover even if they were personally unaware of the false and misleading statements reflected in the stock’s price. The court stated that class actions are necessary to protect the rights of defrauded purchasers of securities.

• Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000). The Firm was lead counsel in this seminal securities fraud case in which the Second Circuit undertook an extensive analysis of the statutory text and the legislative history of the PSLRA and pre-existing Second Circuit case law. Among other things, the Second Circuit held that the PSLRA’s pleading standard for scienter was largely equivalent to the pre-existing Second Circuit standard and vacated the district court’s dismissal which sought to impose a higher standard for pleading scienter under the PSLRA. The Second Circuit also rejected any general requirement that plaintiffs’ confidential sources must be disclosed to satisfy the PSLRA’s newly-enacted particularity requirements.

• In re Cabletron Systems, Inc., 311 F.3d 11 (1st Cir. 2002). The First Circuit joined the Second Circuit in allowing a complaint to be based on confidential sources. The Court also accepted the argument made by Milberg Weiss that courts should consider the amount of discovery that has taken place in deciding a motion to dismiss and that the lack of discovery will result in a less stringent standard for pleading securities fraud claims with particularity.

• Gebhardt v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 335 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2003). This important decision strongly reaffirmed the principle that whether an undisclosed fact would have been material to investors cannot ordinarily be decided on a motion to dismiss. The Eighth Circuit, stressing that "[t]he question of materiality hinges on the particular circumstances of the company in question," observed that even relatively small errors in financial

statements might be material if they concern areas of particular importance to investors and raise questions about management integrity.

• In re Advanta Corp. Securities Litigation, 180 F.3d 525 (3d Cir. 1999). Here, the Firm successfully argued that, under the PSLRA, the requisite scienter is pled by making an adequate showing that the defendants acted knowingly or with reckless disregard for the consequences of their actions. As urged by this Firm, the Third Circuit specifically adopted the Second Circuit’s scienter pleading standard for pleading fraud under the PSLRA.

• In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, 169 F.R.D. 493 (S.D.N.Y. 1996). The court certified a class of millions of investors, who were harmed by an industry-wide conspiracy where NASDAQ market-makers set and maintained wide spreads, over defendants’ strenuous objections.

• In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, 241 F. Supp. 2d 281 (S.D.N.Y. 2003). The Court sustained, in large part, the plaintiffs’ complaints against more than 50 underwriters of high-tech stocks in one of the most comprehensive decisions issued under the securities laws. Milberg Weiss serves as the Chair of Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee in this landmark litigation.

• Asher v. Baxter International, Inc., 377 F.3d 727 (7th Cir. 2004). In reversing and remanding the dismissal by the District Court, the Seventh Circuit resolved an important issue involving the PSLRA “safe harbor” for forward-looking statements in plaintiffs’ favor. The Court held that whether a cautionary statement is meaningful is an issue of fact, because whether a statement is meaningful or not depends in part on what the defendant knew as well as other issues of fact. Thus, this issue is not appropriately resolved on a motion to dismiss.

• In In re Vivendi Universal, S.A. Securities Litigation, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19431 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 3, 2003), Judge Harold Baer upheld plaintiffs’ claims under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, which alleged that Vivendi and two of its former executives (CEO Jean-Marie Messier and CFO Guillaume Hannezo) did not disclose to investors that: (1) Vivendi’s corporate acquisition programs had brought Vivendi to the brink of a potentially catastrophic liquidity crisis; (2) although it consolidated the financial results of several majority owned subsidiaries, Vivendi did not have access to the cash flows of these entities; (3) Vivendi failed to write down


Firm Résumé 9

billions of dollars of impaired goodwill from prior acquisitions; and (4) one of Vivendi’s U.S. subsidiaries improperly recognized revenue “up front” on the full value of long term contracts. The case is particularly notable because the court held that because of defendants’ activities in New York promoting Vivendi stock, defendants’ conduct was more than “merely prepatory” to the alleged fraudulent scheme, and thus the court had jurisdiction not only over purchasers of Vivendi ADRs on the NYSE, but also over the claims of foreign purchasers who purchased Vivendi ordinary shares on foreign exchanges.

• In Hunt v. Alliance North American Government Income Trust, Inc., 159 F.3d 723 (2d Cir. 1998), the Second Circuit reversed the district court’s ruling, which denied plaintiffs a cause of action against defendants for failing to disclose that the Trust was unable to utilize proper “hedging” techniques to insure against risk of loss. In the Court’s view, taken together and in context, the Trust’s representations would have misled a reasonable investor.

• In Shaw v. Digital Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194 (1st Cir. 1996), the First Circuit remanded plaintiffs’ action after affirming, in part, Milberg Weiss’ position that in association with the filing of a prospectus related to the issuance of securities, a corporate-issuer must disclose intra-quarter, materially adverse changes in its business, if such adverse changes constitute “material changes” the disclosure of which is required pursuant to the Securities Act of 1933.

• In re Salomon, Inc. Shareholders Derivative Litigation, 68 F.3d 554 (2d Cir. 1995). The Second Circuit affirmed the district court’s holding that derivative federal securities claims against defendants would not be referred to arbitration pursuant to the arbitration provisions of the Rules of the New York Stock Exchange, but would be tried in district court. Shortly thereafter, the case settled for $40 million, which is among the largest cash recoveries ever recorded in a derivative action.

• Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, 500 U.S. 90 (1991). The Supreme Court upheld the right of a stockholder of a mutual fund to bring a derivative suit without first making a pre-suit demand.

• Goldman v. Belden, 754 F.2d 1059 (2d Cir. 1985). The Second Circuit reversed the district court’s dismissal of a securities fraud complaint, in an important opinion clarifying the “fraud” pleading requirements of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 9(b).

• Mosesian v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co., 727 F.2d 873 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 932 (1984). The Ninth Circuit upheld an investor’s right to pursue a class action against an accounting firm, adopting statute

of limitation rules for §10(b) suits that are favorable to investors.

• Hasan v. CleveTrust Realty Investors, 729 F.2d 372 (6th Cir. 1984). The Sixth Circuit very strictly construed, and thus narrowed, the ability of a “special litigation committee” of the board of a public company to terminate a derivative action brought by a shareholder.

• Cowin v. Bresler, 741 F.2d 410 (D.C. Cir. 1984). The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s dismissal of the complaint. The Firm had sought the extraordinary remedy of the appointment of a receiver over the affairs of a public company due to the highly specific allegations of fraud, dishonesty and gross mismanagement by the corporation’s controlling shareholders.

• Fox v. Reich & Tang, Inc., 692 F.2d 250 (2d Cir. 1982), aff’d sub nom, Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U.S. 523 (1984). The court held that a derivative action to recover excessive advisory fees may be brought on behalf of an investment company without any prior demand on the board.

• Rifkin v. Crow, 574 F.2d 256 (5th Cir. 1978). The Fifth Circuit reversed an order granting summary judgment for defendants in a §10(b) case, paving the way for future acceptance of the “fraud-on-the-market” rationale in the Fifth Circuit.

• Bershad v. McDonough, 300 F. Supp. 1051 (N.D. Ill. 1969), aff’d, 428 F.2d 693 (7th Cir. 1970). The plaintiff obtained summary judgment for a violation of §16(b) of the Securities Exchange Act in which the transaction was structured by the defendants to look like a lawful option. The decision has been cited frequently in discussions as to the scope and purpose of §16(b).

• Heit v. Weitzen, 402 F.2d 909 (2d Cir. 1968), rev’g, 260 F. Supp. 598 (S.D.N.Y. 1966). The court held that liability under §10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act extends to defendants who were not in privity with the named plaintiffs or the class represented by the named plaintiffs.

• In re Cox v. Microsoft, No. 03-2922 (App. Div. 1st Dep’t, June 2004). First appellate ruling in New York state courts that class actions may be pursued in the New York state courts for some antitrust violations on behalf of indirect purchasers under New York deceptive practices laws as well as common law claims for unjust enrichment. May open the door to class action recovery of damages on behalf of New York purchasers of Microsoft software comparable to settlements reached in various other states such as California, where Microsoft settled for approximately $1 billion.


Firm Résumé 10

• In re JLM Industries, Inc. v. Stolt-Nielsen SA, No. 3:03CV348 (D. Conn. June 24, 2003). Milberg Weiss succeeded in establishing that arbitration of horizontal conspiracy claims, arising under Section 1 of the Sherman Act, cannot be compelled on grounds that such claims do not “arise from” the injured person’s purchase contract. (Currently on appeal and awaiting decision from the Second Circuit.)

• In Puckett v. Sony Music Entertainment, No. 108802/98 (New York Co. 2002), Milberg Weiss achieved a precedent-setting decision in which a class action was certified against Sony Music Entertainment on behalf of a class of recording artists who were parties to standard Sony recording or production agreements

entered into at any time during the period of January 1, 1965 to the date of the filing of the complaint in 1998. The complaint alleged that Sony had a policy of treating the value added tax on foreign sales of recordings improperly thereby impermissibly reducing the royalties paid or credited to the class members. Justice DeGrasse of the New York State Supreme Court determined that class certification was appropriate and that Gary Puckett (of Gary Puckett & the Union Gap) and jazz musician and composer Robert Watson were appropriate class representatives to represent the class of artists and producers to whom Sony accounts for foreign record royalties.

Additionally, in the context of shareholder derivative actions, Milberg Weiss has been at the forefront of protecting shareholders’ investments by causing important changes in corporate governance as part of the global settlement of such cases. Cases in which such changes were made include:

• In re Marketspan Corporate Shareholder Litigation, CV No. 98-15884 (N.Y. Sup. Ct.) (settlement agreement required modifications of corporate governance structure, changes to the audit committee and changes in compensation awards and the nominating committee);

• Abramsky v. Computer Sciences Corp., CV No. 98-00306-JBR (RLH) (D. Nev. 1998) (significant changes to the company’s by-laws and governance procedures to enhance shareholder voting rights and the role of outside directors).


Firm Résumé 11

Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP THE FIRM’S PARTNERS

MELVYN I. WEISS, Senior and Founding Partner of Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, is a leading practitioner in the fields of securities, insurance, environmental, antitrust, and consumer litigation.

Mr. Weiss’s expertise has been recognized on numerous occasions by courts appointing him to leadership positions in prosecuting complex litigations. Among the more prominent of the outstanding recoveries in cases where he has represented defrauded investors or consumers are the Drexel/Milken litigations (recoveries of over $1 billion for investors in, among others, Columbia Savings & Loan and Executive Life Insurance Company of America); In re Washington Public Power Supply System Securities Litigation ($775 million recovered after the country’s largest municipal bond default); Butcher Bank Litigation (leading to $400 million recovery on behalf of the FDIC against Ernst & Young); Oxford Healthcare Securities Litigation ($300 million); Prudential Limited Partnership Litigation ($200 million); Mercedes Brake Defect Litigation ($100 million in settlement benefits); life insurance policy holder cases against Prudential Life Insurance ($4 billion), John Hancock ($400 million), New York Life ($300 million), ManuLife ($500 million) and Metropolitan Life ($1.7 billion). He was a pro bono lead counsel in the Swiss Bank Litigation involving Holocaust confiscations, which settled for $1.25 billion, and was a lead counsel in recovering $5 billion for Holocaust victims from German banks and companies. He is presently Chair of the Plaintiff’s Executive Committee prosecuting over 300 cases involving misconduct in connection with initial public offerings, in which a partial settlement with some defendants of $1 billion has been announced.

Mr. Weiss received a B.B.A. in accounting from Baruch College of the City College of New York in 1957, and a J.D. degree from New York University School of Law in 1959. He was admitted to the Bar of the State of New York in 1960 and is presently a member of the Bar of the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Eighth, Ninth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits, and the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Weiss has lectured extensively to lawyers, law students, and other professionals throughout the country and abroad. He has been a guest lecturer at the New York University School of Law, Stanford University Law School, Harvard Law School, Duke Law School,

University of Buenos Aires (where he is an honorary professor), and at the Salzburg Seminar Foundation in Austria. He has addressed the New York State Society of Certified Public Accountants, National Association of Accountants, National Association of Internal Auditors, and in 1993 delivered the Abraham Briloff Distinguished Lecture at the State University of New York at Binghamton on the role of the auditor in our society. He has frequently been quoted as a leading authority on shareholder and consumer rights in the national media and he has testified before congressional committees on securities litigation and accountants’ liability. Mr. Weiss is a Fellow of The American College of Trial Lawyers. He received the 1993 Arthur T. Vanderbilt Medal from New York University Law School, the highest award given annually to an outstanding alumnus, and is a member of the law school’s Board of Trustees and a recipient of the Alumni Achievement Award. In 2005, Accounting Today named Mr. Weiss as one of its Top 100 Most Influential People.

Mr. Weiss is a member of the American Bar Association (from 1986-1988, he served as a Co-Chair of the Class and Derivative Committee of the Litigation Section; from 1983-1986, he served as a member of the FRCP Rule 23 Class Action Improvement Committee; and from 1976-1982, he served as a member of the Corporate Law Committee of the Banking and Business Law Section), the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and the New York Inns of Court. In 2000, Mr. Weiss was selected by Chief Judge Edward R. Becker of the Third Circuit to serve as a member of the Third Circuit Task Force on Selection of Class Counsel.

Mr. Weiss was a Commissioner of the Nassau County Charter Revision Commission, which proposed the new legislative form of government for the county's 1.3 million residents. He has testified before the U.S. Senate on tort "reform" proposals. He is a director and a member of the Executive Committee of the Israel Policy Forum, an organization devoted to encouraging peace in the Middle East. Until recently, Mr. Weiss served on the Board of Directors of the Salzburg Seminar Foundation and he is presently on the Boards of the Lawyers' Committee for Civil Rights Under Law, the World Council of the American Jewish Congress and the American Constitution Society. Mr. Weiss is the Vice Chairman of the Drum Major Institute for Public Policy, a think tank founded during the civil rights movement that today provides ideas to fuel the progressive agenda.


Firm Résumé 12

Mr. Weiss and his wife established the Melvyn and Barbara Weiss Public Interest Foundation at New York University School of Law to assist graduating public-interest lawyers in retiring their student loans. He has received the Anti-Defamation League’s Gotham Award and Humanitarian Award; the United Jewish Appeal’s Proskauer Award, given annually to an exemplary Jewish lawyer and humanitarian; the B’nai B’rith of Argentina Dignity & Justice Award for humanitarian activities; and the Ellis Island Medal of Honor from the National Ethnic Coalition of Organizations Foundation, Inc. Mr. Weiss is the International Chair of the Hatikva Project, which built a memorial on the site of the Israeli Embassy in Buenos Aires, which was destroyed by terrorists.

DAVID J. BERSHAD graduated from Cornell University in 1961 with an A.B. degree in philosophy. He graduated from Columbia Law School in 1964 and while there he participated in the Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Honors Competition and was elected a member of Phi Alpha Delta.

Mr. Bershad is a founding member of Milberg Weiss. He is primarily engaged in prosecuting complex securities and commercial litigations nationwide. He served as plaintiffs’ liaison counsel in In re Baldwin United Corporation Litigation, M.D.L. No. 581 (S.D.N.Y.), and was prime negotiator of settlements aggregating more than $220 million, the largest federal securities class action settlement recorded at that time. Subsequently, he has led plaintiffs’ counsel in a wide range of cases arising out of the federal securities laws, as well as antitrust and consumer laws. He has actively negotiated more than 100 complex class action settlements, including acting as prime negotiator and achieving a $1.07 billion settlement in In re NASDAQ Market Makers Antitrust Litigation, M.D.L. No.1023 (S.D.N.Y.), the largest antitrust class action settlement at that time. He recently acted as class lead counsel in securities class actions involving Rite Aid (settled in 2003 for approximately $300 million) and Lucent (global settlements of $600 million).

Mr. Bershad is a regular panelist on securities law matters for the Practising Law Institute, American Bar Association, American Conference Institute, Glasser Legal Works, and American Law Institute-American Bar Association. He lectures on the topics of complex litigation, federal securities law, class actions and financial derivatives. He has contributed the plaintiffs’ view in a book, Securities Class Actions: Abuses and Remedies, published by the National Legal Center for the Public Interest, and has debated the plaintiffs’ view of the world before the Federalist Society. He has also appeared as a legal expert on CNBC and CNN regarding significant business related public interest issues. Mr.

Bershad was recently profiled in Fortune magazine’s feature story for his leading role in the Lucent Technologies Shareholder Litigation.

Mr. Bershad is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court.

STEVEN G. SCHULMAN graduated with a B.A. degree in history, magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa, from Williams College in 1973. He earned an M.A. degree (1975) and a M.A.L.D. degree (1976) in international relations from the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy at Tufts University. In 1980, Mr. Schulman received his J.D. degree. with honors from the University of Chicago Law School, where he served on The University of Chicago Law Review and was elected to the Order of the Coif. Thereafter, he served for one year as a law clerk to the Honorable Robert L. Kunzig of the United States Court of Claims in Washington, D.C., following which he associated with Cravath, Swaine & Moore in New York City.

Since joining Milberg Weiss in 1986, Mr. Schulman has been engaged in prosecuting a wide variety of securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative actions. He has also been actively and extensively involved in shareholder litigations arising from mergers and acquisitions, many of which were litigated in Courts of the State of Delaware. Among Mr. Schulman’s significant recent cases, he served as lead trial counsel in In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation (E.D. Va.), which settled for an amount in excess of $150 million. He led the trial team in the landmark In re Walt Disney Derivative Litigation case, which has redefined the fiduciary duties of directors in public companies. He is also serving as lead counsel in the In re Nortel Networks Corporation Securities Litigation pending in the Southern District of New York, the In re Williams Securities Litigation pending in the Northern District of Oklahoma and in the In re Raytheon Securities Litigation pending in the District of Massachusetts. He is also significantly involved in the Firm’s groundbreaking litigation relating to Wall Street’s IPO allocation practices.

Mr. Schulman frequently lectures and participates in professional education panels, some of which include: Civil Practice and Litigation Techniques in Federal and State Courts, organized by ALI-ABA Committee on Continuing Professional Education (11/16-18/00); Key Issues Facing Boards Of Directors: The Coming Tide in Securities Class Actions, organized by AIG, Freeborn & Peters, Milberg Weiss and the National Economic


Firm Résumé 13

Research Associates (02/22/01); Leveraged Buyouts & Other Private Equity Investments, organized by City Bar Center for CLE - Association of the Bar of the City of New York (09/24/01); The 33rd Annual Institute on Securities Regulations, organized by Practicing Law Institute (11/7/01); Evolution of the Derivative Lawsuit, organized by Professional Liability Underwriting Society (02/06/02); Sarbanes-Oxley Act: Impact on Civil Litigation under the Federal Securities Laws, organized by ALI-ABA Committee on Continuing Professional Education (12/5/02); Corporate Governance and Disclosure, organized by Corporate Communications Broadcast Network (3/20/03); Seventh Circuit Judicial Conference Corporate Governance Roundtable, organized by The Seventh Circuit Bar Association (05/05/03); and The 35th Annual Institute on Securities Regulations, organized by Practising Law Institute (11/8/03); Life and Health Insurance and Financial Services Litigation: Fallout From “Canary”, organized by ALI-ABA Committee on Continuing Professional Education (05/06/04); Council of Institutional Investors 2005 Spring Conference (04/11/05); Director Liability in the Wake of the Disney Decision (Telephone Briefing), organized by Practising Law Institute (09/08/05). In addition, Mr. Schulman has co-authored several publications on the subject of securities and shareholder litigation: “Leveraged Buyouts – Issues From The Shareholder Plaintiffs’ Perspective,” (09/01 NY, NY); “Developments in Private Securities Litigation Standards and Other Significant Case Law Developments” (11/01 NY, NY); “Duties and Liabilities of Outside Directors to Ensure That Adequate Information and Control Systems Are in Place – A Study in Delaware Law and the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995” (02/02 NY, NY); “Sarbanes-Oxley Act: The Impact on Civil Litigation Under the Federal Securities Laws from the Plaintiffs’ Perspective” (12/5/02, NY, NY); “The Plaintiff’s Perspective on Shareholder Class and Derivative Actions Alleging Breach of Fiduciary Duty” (3/12/03, NY, NY); “Cutting Edge Issues in the New Millennium: Corporate Governance and the Courts - The Sarbanes-Oxley Act and the Impact on Civil Litigation Under the Federal Securities Laws from the Plaintiffs’ Perspective” (5/5/03, Milwaukee, WI); “Fallout From “Canary”: “Private Civil Litigation and Legal Remedies Beyond Regulatory Measures” (5/6/04, Washington D.C.); Executive Pay Activism (4/11/05, Washington D.C.); Old Wine in New Bottles: The Curious Evolution” of the Concept of Loss Causation (09/05, NY, NY).

Mr. Schulman is a member of the Association of the Bar of the State of New York, the American Bar Association, and the Federal Bar Council. A member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Mr. Schulman served on its Special Committee on Mergers, Acquisitions and Corporate Control Contests. He is a

Presidential level member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) and a Sustaining Fellow in the Roscoe Pound Institute. Mr. Schulman is a member of the Bars of the State of New York and the District of Columbia and is also admitted to practice before the District Court of the Southern, Northern, and Eastern Districts of New York.

JEROME M. CONGRESS received an A.B. degree with honors from Cornell University. From 1960 to 1962 he was a Fulbright Scholar at Oxford University, England, where he studied philosophy, politics and economics. He received an LL.B. degree cum laude from Harvard Law School where he was an editor of Harvard Law Review during 1963-1964.

Since graduating from law school, Mr. Congress has spent the bulk of his time in commercial and securities litigation.

Mr. Congress is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

ARNOLD N. BRESSLER graduated from Case Western Reserve University in 1971 with a B.A. degree, magna cum laude, and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. In 1974 he graduated from Columbia Law School where he was a member of the Board of Editors of the Columbia Law Review and a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.

Mr. Bressler is the head of the firm’s corporate department, which represents primarily middle market (sales under $100 million) public companies and closely held and foreign-owned corporations. Approximately 40% of the department’s time is devoted to securities-related matters, 30% to mergers and acquisitions, and 30% to general corporate matters. The firm is currently general counsel to a number of publicly traded corporations in the United States and several subsidiaries of foreign public corporations.

The firm has represented companies on the New York and American Stock Exchanges and NASDAQ companies, taken companies public, and managed secondary offerings. Mr. Bressler has specialized in corporate and securities law for over 25 years, primarily representing issuers. Mr. Bressler is the firm’s representative to ACL International, an association of international law firms with members in over 40 countries. Mr. Bressler has lectured in Europe and North America on U.S. securities and corporate laws.

Since 1994, Mr. Bressler has served as a director and officer of the Israel Humanitarian Foundation, which supports social service programs in Israel. From 1990 to 1996, Mr. Bressler served as vice chairman of the board


Firm Résumé 14

of directors of the Rodeph Sholom School, a private elementary school in New York City.

Mr. Bressler is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. He is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York and the State of New Jersey as well as the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey.

MICHAEL C. SPENCER graduated from Yale University in 1973 with a B.A. degree, magna cum laude, with distinction, in philosophy. While at Yale, he was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. Mr. Spencer received a J.D. degree from Harvard Law School, cum laude, in 1976.

After graduation, Mr. Spencer served as law clerk to the Honorable William Matthew Byrne Jr., United States District Court, Central District of California, in 1976-77. He then returned to New York and joined Cravath, Swaine & Moore as an associate, where he worked until 1986 on antitrust, banking, real estate, commercial and securities litigation matters. In his later years at Cravath, he represented the bond fund trustee in connection with bond defaults of Washington Public Power Supply System nuclear plants.

In 1986, Mr. Spencer joined Milberg Weiss as an associate and became a partner later that year. He worked on the WPPSS securities fraud litigation and many of the Firm’s other cases, prominently including representation of the FDIC in its failed bank audit litigation involving the Butcher Brothers banks in Tennessee, which led to a year-long trial and a global settlement of all bank-related claims against Ernst & Whinney just before closing arguments to the jury in late 1992.

He has since worked on many of the Firm’s securities fraud cases, as well as cases in other areas including representation of a broad coalition of union health care funds seeking to recover costs for treating smoking-related illnesses from the tobacco industry, Year 2000 litigation, cases involving alleged kickbacks in the mortgage insurance industry and consumer and securities fraud cases against insurance companies selling deferred annuities into qualified retirement plans.

Mr. Spencer is chair of the Firm’s Technology Committee and serves on the Management Committee. Mr. Spencer is admitted to practice in the courts of the States of New York and California, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the Central District of California, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Fourth, Seventh, Ninth, Eleventh, and D.C. Circuits.

ROBERT A. WALLNER received his B.A. degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1976 graduating magna cum laude. He attended New York University School of Law, earning his J.D. degree in May 1979. He was elected to the law school’s Order of the Coif and served as an editor of New York University Law Review.

Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Wallner was associated with Cravath, Swaine & Moore. He has litigated complex securities, consumer and antitrust class actions throughout the country. He currently represents investors in In re Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), In re Deutsche Telekom Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) and In re CMS Energy Corporation Securities Litigation (E.D. Mich.). He has also represented consumers in In re Synthroid Marketing Litigation (N.D. Ill.) and the Mercedes-Benz Tire Litigation (D.N.J.).

Mr. Wallner is a frequent lecturer on securities and complex litigation issues, and serves on the editorial board of Securities Litigation Report, published by Glasser LegalWorks.

Mr. Wallner is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York where he served as a member of its Federal Courts Committee. He also served as a member of the faculty of the American Bar Association’s First Annual National Institute on Securities Litigation and Arbitration, in June 1998. Mr. Wallner is admitted to the New York Bar and the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

SANFORD P. DUMAIN attended Columbia University where he received his B.A. degree in 1978. He graduated cum laude from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law of Yeshiva University in 1981 and was Research Editor of Cardozo Law Review, 1980-1981. Mr. Dumain served as law clerk to Judge Warren W. Eginton, U.S. District Court, District of Connecticut 1981-1982. During the early years of his practice, he also served as an Adjunct Instructor in Legal Writing and Moot Court at Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law.

Since joining Milberg Weiss in 1984, Mr. Dumain has represented plaintiffs in cases involving securities fraud, consumer fraud, insurance fraud and violations of the antitrust laws. He has lectured for ALI-ABA concerning accountants’ liability and has prosecuted several actions against accounting firms.

During 1990, Mr. Dumain served on the trial team for a six-month trial in which the Firm represented the City of San Jose, California, that resulted in a verdict totaling over $18 million plus pre-judgment interest for the City against the defendants. The City’s claims


Firm Résumé 15

against two of the defendants were settled for $12 million while appeals to the Ninth Circuit were pending. Previously, settlements with eleven other defendants totaled over $12 million.

Judge Janet C. Hall of the District of Connecticut made the following comment in In re Fine Host Securities Litigation, (Docket No. 3:97-CV-2619 (JCH)): “The court also finds that the plaintiff class received excellent counseling, particularly from the Chair of the Plaintiffs’ Executive Committee, Attorney Dumain.”

Mr. Dumain is admitted to practice to the State Bar of New York, U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and District of Connecticut, and U.S. Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Sixth, Seventh and Eighth Circuits.

GEORGE A. BAUER III earned his B.B.A. degree magna cum laude in 1976 from Bernard M. Baruch College of the City University of New York, where he majored in accounting. He was awarded the Andrew J. Coppola prize in Law from Baruch College. Mr. Bauer attended New York University School of Law and graduated with a J.D. degree in 1979.

Mr. Bauer’s practice concentrates on Class Action Settlements and Settlement Administration. He has played a lead role in documenting and effectuating many of the largest and most complex securities litigations settlements ever obtained, notably including: the $1.027 billion settlement of the In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, MDL No. 1023, (S.D.N.Y.); settlements relating to the $2 billion estate of the Drexel Burnham Lambert including In re Drexel Burnham Lambert Group, 90 Civ. 6954 (MP) (S.D.N.Y.) and the $1.3 billion settlement of the In re Michael Milken & Associates Securities Litigation, MDL 924 (S.D.N.Y.); settlements worth over $775 million in In re Washington Public Power Supply Systems Securities Litigation, MDL 551 (D. Ariz.); settlements including cash and securities worth over $615 million in In re Lucent Technologies Inc. Securities Litigation, Case No 00-CV-621 (JAP) (D. N.J.); the $300 million cash settlement of In re Oxford Health Plans Inc., Securities Litigation, MDL No. 1222 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y.); the $200 million settlement in In re PaineWebber Limited Partnerships Litigation, Master File No. 94-Civ.8547 (SHS)(S.D.N.Y.); the settlement for cash and securities worth over $137.5 million in In re Microstrategy Inc. Securities Litigation, Civil Action N. 00-473-A (E.D. Va, Alexandria Division); the settlements for securities worth over $133.5 million in In re Computer Associates Class Action Securities Litigation, Master File No. 98 Civ. 4839 (TCP), and In re Computer Associates 2002 Class Action Securities Litigation, Master File No,.02-CV-1226 (TCP) (E.D.N.Y.); and the $110 million settlement in In re

Prudential Securities Inc. Limited Partnerships Securities Litigation, MDL 1005 (MP) (S.D.N.Y.).

Mr. Bauer is a member of the Firm’s Library Committee. He is also a member of the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, and the New York County Lawyers Association.

Mr. Bauer was admitted as a member of the New York Bar in January 1980 and is also admitted to the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. Mr. Bauer is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fourth Circuits.

BARRY A. WEPRIN graduated from Harvard College in 1974. He received a J.D. degree from the New York University School of Law in 1978, and a master of public affairs from the Woodrow Wilson School of Princeton University in 1978. While in law school, Mr. Weprin was notes and comments editor of New York University Law Review.

Since joining Milberg Weiss in 1989, Mr. Weprin has specialized in securities and insurance litigation. He has served as co-lead counsel in a number of complex securities class action litigations, including In re AremisSoft Securities Litigation (D.N.J.), In re All Star Inns Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), In re York Research Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), and Bharucha v. Reuters, PLC (E.D.N.Y.). He was one of the principal attorneys in the sales practice litigations against The New York Life Insurance Company, The New England Life Insurance Service Company, The John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company, and The Prudential Life Insurance Company.

Previously, Mr. Weprin served as law clerk to Judge Charles P. Sifton of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York and was associated with the law firm of Wachtell Lipton Rosen & Katz where he specialized in commercial and securities litigation. From 1985 to 1989 he served as general counsel to the New York State Housing Finance Agency and the New York State Medical Care Facilities Finance Agency, two agencies that issue tax exempt bonds for financing nonprofit medical facilities and qualified housing projects.

In approving the settlement in the Allstar Inns case, Judge Peter Leisure stated:

We have a situation here which is a classic example of the benefits to be derived through the class action vehicle, to have the high quality representation of the class. The reputation of counsel . . . Barry Weprin of Milberg Weiss, precedes them to this court and I’m familiar in


Firm Résumé 16

other matters with the case in which these lawyers work.

The class was indeed fortunate to have lawyers of this caliber on this matter and the court is satisfied that the class was well-represented and had the benefits of the quality of representation that would not have otherwise been available if the class action vehicle had not been used.

Mr. Weprin is a frequent lecturer on complex litigation issues.

Mr. Weprin is a member of the American Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York County Lawyers Association, and the New York State Bar Association. Mr. Weprin is admitted to practice in New York, the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

DAVID A. P. BROWER received his A.B. degree from Columbia College of Columbia University in 1979. He received his J.D. degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1982, and attended the University of London in 1980, where he studied comparative and international commercial law.

Mr. Brower is a member of the National Association of Securities and Commercial Law Attorneys, and lectures before professional organizations in the areas of securities regulation and litigation. Mr. Brower has extensive experience in complex shareholder derivative and securities, commodities, consumer protection, environmental, antitrust, and RICO class action litigation.

Mr. Brower is admitted to the Bar of the State of New York, and admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States; the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, Tenth and Eleventh Circuits; and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

RICHARD H. WEISS received an A.B. degree summa cum laude from Princeton University in 1979. In 1980, he received an M.Phil. degree in international relations from Cambridge University, England. He graduated from Yale Law School in 1983.

Mr. Weiss is admitted to practice in the State of New York, the United States District Court for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Sixth Circuits, United States Supreme Court, and the United States Claims Court.

DEBORAH CLARK-WEINTRAUB attended St. John’s University and received a B.A. degree summa cum laude in 1981. She received the President’s Award

upon graduation for attaining the highest academic average among the graduates of St. John’s College of Liberal Arts and Sciences. Ms. Weintraub attended Hofstra University School of Law and received her J.D. degree, with distinction, in 1986. She was a member of Law Review (1984-1985) and served as Research Editor (1985-1986). Following graduation, Ms. Weintraub served as a law clerk to the Honorable Jacob Mishler, United States District Judge, United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York (1986-1987). She joined Milberg Weiss in 1987 following her clerkship. Ms. Weintraub is a managing partner of the Firm and a member of its Diversity Committee.

Ms. Weintraub has extensive securities class action experience and has acted as one of plaintiffs’ co-lead counsel in numerous securities class action cases that have obtained substantial recoveries for defrauded investors including In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Securities Litigation, MDL Dkt. No. 1222 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y.), in which a cash settlement of $300 million was obtained. Ms. Weintraub is currently serving as co-lead counsel for plaintiffs in numerous securities class action cases including In re CVS Corporation Securities Litigation, No. 01-11464 (JLT) (D. Mass.), and In re Metromedia Fiber Network, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 01 Civ. 7353 (CLB) (S.D.N.Y.). Ms Weintraub is also one of the lead plaintiffs’ counsel in In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL Dkt. 1586 (D. Md.). This multidistrict litigation seeks to recoup the damages suffered by mutual fund shareholders caused by market timing and late trading activity.

Ms. Weintraub is the co-author of “Gender Bias and the Treatment of Women As Advocates,” Women in Law (1998), and of the “Dissenting Introduction” defending the merits of securities class action litigation contained in the 1994 monograph Securities Class Actions: Abuses and Remedies, which was published by the National Legal Center for the Public Interest.

Ms. Weintraub is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and the New York County Lawyers’ Association. Ms. Weintraub was admitted to the New York Bar in March 1987 and is also admitted to the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

BRAD N. FRIEDMAN received an B.A. degree in government from Cornell University in 1982 and a J.D. degree cum laude from New York University School of Law in 1986, where he was a member of the Order of the Coif and an editor of the New York University Law Review. Upon graduation from law school, he began a one-year judicial clerkship with the


Firm Résumé 17

Honorable Max Rosenn, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

Mr. Friedman has recovered billions of dollars on behalf of injured plaintiffs, including as lead counsel in numerous “vanishing premium” and “churning” life insurance sales practice class actions (including cases again Prudential and Metropolitan Life). In 2002, Mr. Friedman acted as lead counsel on behalf of various asbestos committees in the W.R. Grace bankruptcy, and successfully recovered approximately $1 billion through a fraudulent conveyance litigation. Mr. Friedman also has an active securities and plaintiffs’ mass tort practice.

Mr. Friedman is a member of the Federal Bar Council, the American Bar Association, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the New York State Bar Association and the New York City Bar Association. Mr. Friedman is admitted in the courts of the State of New York and New Jersey, as well as the United States Courts of Appeals for the Third and Fifth Circuits, and the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District of New Jersey.

JOSHUA H. VINIK graduated with honors from the State University of New York at Oneonta in 1983 where he majored in economics. After graduating cum laude from Brooklyn Law School, Mr. Vinik clerked for Magistrate (now Judge) Carol B. Amon of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York.

Mr. Vinik’s practice focuses primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors, as well as complex commercial litigation, including accountants’ liability actions and derivative actions. Mr. Vinik’s extensive litigation efforts on behalf of aggrieved investors include many actions which have led to significant recoveries for investors, including In re Baan Securities Litigation (D.D.C.); Lasky v. Brown (United Companies Financial Securities Litigation) (M.D. La.), Kaufman v. Motorola, Inc. (N.D. Ill.) and In re Salomon Inc. Shareholders Derivative Litigation (S.D.N.Y.).

Mr. Vinik is a member of the American Bar Association, The New York State Bar Association and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Mr. Vinik is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, and Fifth Circuits.

JEFF S. WESTERMAN received his B.A. degree from Northwestern University in 1977, where he was selected to two senior honorary societies. He received his J.D. degree from the University of

Pittsburgh in 1980, where he was a member of Law Review from 1978 to 1980.

Mr. Westerman’s practice is primarily in the areas of securities fraud class actions, shareholder derivative actions and corporate mergers and acquisition litigation. He has served as lead or co-lead counsel in cases resulting in significant corporate governance changes and shareholder recoveries totaling more than $330 million.

Mr. Westerman has also been the moderator or speaker for programs on complex litigation, developments in class action practice, settlements, the Sarbanes-Oxley Corporate Responsibility Act, shareholder derivative actions and trends in business litigation.

Mr. Westerman is an ex-officio member, and was a member (2001-2003) and Co-Chair (2002-2003) of the Central District of California Attorney Delegation to the United States Ninth Circuit Judicial Conference. He serves on the Central District of California, U.S. Magistrate Judge Merit Selection Panel (2003-present) and the standing committee on Attorney Discipline (2004-present). He is also a member of the Central District of California Attorney Settlement Officer Panel (1998-present ).

Mr. Westerman is currently the president of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers. He was on the Board of Governors (1997-2001), Treasurer (2001-2002), Secretary (2002-2003) and Vice President (2003-2004 ). He is also on the Board of Governors of the Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (2003-present).

Mr. Westerman is a member of the Los Angeles County Bar Complex Courts Bench-Bar Committee, and the Bench-Bar Civil Courts Committee; and served as Judge Pro Tem in the Los Angeles Small Claims Court in 1987-1988, 1990, 1992-1993 and 1996-1997. He is a member of the Los Angeles County and Federal Bar Associations. He was on the California State Bar Task Force on Complex Litigation, and Chair of the Judicial Education Subcommittee (1997).

Mr. Westerman is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of California, as well as the United States District Court for the Central District of California, the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the United States Supreme Court.

EDITH M. KALLAS graduated from the Juilliard School in 1984 with a B.M. degree in music performance and from the Fashion Institute of Technology with an A.A.S., summa cum laude. She graduated with a J.D. from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law in 1987, where she was a member of the Moot Court Board.


Firm Résumé 18

Ms. Kallas is presently a Managing Partner of the Firm and concentrates her practice primarily in the areas of healthcare and securities litigation. Her clients include: the Medical Society of the State of New York, the Connecticut State Medical Society, the Medical Society of New Jersey, South Carolina Medical Association, Tennessee Medical Association, North Virginia Medical Societies, North Carolina Medical Society, Washington State Medical Association, Hawaii Medical Association, Alaska Medical Association, Vermont Medical Society, El Paso County Medical Society of Colorado, and the California Chiropractic Association.

Ms. Kallas is the co-author of “Gender Bias and the Treatment of Women As Advocates,” Women in Law (1998). Ms. Kallas has also participated as a faculty member and/or speaker in the following conferences: “Class Action Health Care Litigation,” ALI-ABA Health Care Law and Litigation Conference, 1999; “Class Actions: HMOs and Health Care Providers Under Attack,” ALI-ABA Life and Health Insurance Litigation Conference, 2000; “Providers (Suits by Doctors and Hospital Class Actions),” ALI-ABA Health Care Law and Litigation Conference, 2000; “The Application of ERISA and RICO Theories in the Age of Managed Care,” The Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert, 2000; “Health Care Litigation: What You Need to Know After Pegram,” Practicing Law Institute, 2000; “Provider Suits by Doctors and Hospitals v. HMOs,” ALI-ABA Health Care Law and Litigation Conference, 2001; The Joint Seminar Session of the School of Allied Health and Health Law Section at Quinnipiac University School of Law, 2001; The CLE Conference presented by the American Society of Medical Association Counsel, 2002; “The Unique Role of The Medical Society Effectively Litigating for Change in the Healthcare Arena”, American Academy of Otolaryngology Presidential - Board of Governors Special Seminar 2002.

Ms. Kallas is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York State Bar Association and the New York County Lawyers’ Association. Ms. Kallas is admitted to the New York State Bar, the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Sixth Circuits.

WILLIAM C. FREDERICKS graduated with high honors from Swarthmore College in 1983 with a B.A. degree in political science, and earned his M.Litt. degree in international relations from Oxford University (England) in 1988. In 1988, he also received his J.D. degree from Columbia University, where he was a three-time Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar, a Columbia University International fellow, an articles editor of The Columbia

Journal of Transnational Law, and the recipient of the Beck Prize in property law, the Toppan Prize in advanced constitutional law, and the Greenbaum Prize for written advocacy. A panel chaired by Justice Antonin Scalia also awarded Mr. Fredericks the Gov. Thomas E. Dewey Prize for best oral argument in the final round of the 1988 Harlan Fiske Stone Moot Court Competition. After graduating from law school, Mr. Fredericks clerked for the Hon. Robert S. Gawthrop III of the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania from 1988-89, and then worked as an associate at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett and Willkie Farr & Gallagher.

At Milberg Weiss, Mr. Fredericks specializes in securities and other complex commercial litigation. In the securities area, Mr. Fredericks has represented investors in numerous class actions in which Milberg Weiss has been appointed sole or co-lead counsel, including In re Rite Aid Securities Litigation (E.D. Pa.); Bassman v. Union Pacific Corp. (N.D.Tex.); In re MobileMedia, Inc. Securities Litigation (D.N.J.); In re Olsten Corp. Securities Litigation (E.D.N.Y.); Chu v. Sabratek Corp. (N.D. Ill.); Schaffer v. Evolving Systems, Inc. (D. Colo.); In re New Era of Networks, Inc. (D. Colo.); Lirette v. Shiva Corp. (D. Mass.); Bell v. Fore Systems, Inc. (W.D.Pa. 1998); In re Cabletron Systems, Inc. Securities Litigation (D.N.H.); In re Vivendi Universal S.A. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), and Irvine v. Imclone Systems, Inc. (S.D.N.Y.). Mr. Fredericks has also successfully represented several institutional clients (including Mexico’s TV Azteca and Australia’s Australis Media Group) in private commercial disputes at both the trial and appellate level. See, e.g., National Broadcasting Co. (NBC) v. Bear Stearns & Co., et al., 165 F.3d 184 (2d Cir. 1999); News Ltd. v. Australis Holdings Pty. Limited., 728 N.Y.S. 2d 667 (1st Dep’t 2001) and 742 N.Y.S. 2d 190 (1st Dep’t 2002).

Mr. Fredericks has been a panelist on various securities litigation programs sponsored by different organizations, including the Practising Law Institute. He is the author, most recently, of “Recent Developments in Civil Securities Fraud Litigation” (with Melvyn I. Weiss) published in SEC Disclosure Accounting and Enforcement (Glasser LegalWorks, April 2002).

Mr. Fredericks is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and is a former chairman of the Association’s Committee on Military Affairs and Justice. Mr. Fredericks is admitted to practice before the courts of New York State, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District of Colorado, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third, Sixth and Tenth Circuits. He has also been admitted pro hac vice by, and


Firm Résumé 19

argued before, the Supreme Court of the State of New Jersey (see Kaufman v. I-Stat Corp., 165 N.J. 94 (2000).

JANINE L. POLLACK graduated from Rutgers University in 1986, with high honors, with a B.A. She majored in English and French and was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. In 1989, Ms. Pollack earned her J.D. from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. She was a member of the International Journal of Business Law. Since joining Milberg Weiss in 1991, Ms. Pollack has prosecuted numerous different class actions, including securities and consumer fraud, sex discrimination and annuities cases. She is a member of the firm’s Hiring Committee; runs the firm’s CLE program; is in charge of, and a mentor in, the firm’s Mentor program; and is an editor for numerous of the firm’s publications and brochures. Ms. Pollack has spoken at numerous conferences and CLE programs, including Mealey’s and the firm’s in-house CLE program.

Ms. Pollack is a member of the American Bar Association. She was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1990. She was also admitted to the New Jersey State Bar in 1989, as well as the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey. In 1990, Ms. Pollack was admitted to the U.S. District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

KIRK E. CHAPMAN graduated cum laude from Harvard University in 1985 with a B.A. degree in biochemistry. He received his J.D. in 1989 from the University of Chicago where he was a member of the Legal Forum publication. Mr. Chapman’s major practice areas are securities fraud class actions and employment discrimination matters.

Mr. Chapman is admitted to practice in the Courts of the State of New York as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

SALVATORE J. GRAZIANO graduated from New York University School of Law in 1991, cum laude. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Graziano served as an assistant district attorney in the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office until he joined Milberg Weiss in 1995.

Mr. Graziano is a member of the Firm’s Management Committee. Mr. Graziano, an experienced trial attorney, has taken a leading role in a number of the Firm’s major securities fraud class actions including cases against: Raytheon Company and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (total recoveries of $460 million); MicroStrategy, Inc. and PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP (total recoveries valued at approximately $200 million); i2 Technologies, Inc. (total recovery of $84.85 million (pending final court approval)); and Aetna Inc. (total recovery of $82.5 million).

Mr. Graziano has achieved significant legal precedent at the district and appellate court level nationwide, including the seminal Second Circuit decision of Novak v. Kasaks, 216 F.3d 300 (2d Cir. 2000), interpreting the pleading standards of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995.

Mr. Graziano is presently a member of the Financial Reporting Committee of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and previously served on the Securities Regulation Committee of the New York City Bar Association. Mr. Graziano has served as a panelist on numerous securities litigation programs. Mr. Graziano is admitted to practice before the courts of New York State, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Eleventh Circuits.

J. DOUGLAS RICHARDS earned his A.B. degree in 1977 from the University of Chicago, majoring in economics, and earned his J.D. degree in 1981 from Harvard Law School. Before joining Milberg Weiss in June 2000, he served for nearly three years as deputy general counsel of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) in Washington, D.C. Before joining the CFTC, he was a litigator for more than 12 years with O’Sullivan Graev & Karabell, LLP in New York, first as a litigation associate from 1985-89 and then as a litigation partner from 1989 to October 1997 when he left to join the CFTC. From 1981 to 1985, he was a litigation associate with Cahill Gordon & Reindel in New York.

Mr. Richards is a member of the American Bar Association (Antitrust Section), the Antitrust Section of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the Advisory Board of the American Antitrust Institute, and the New York State Bar Association (Commercial and Federal Litigation Section, Committee on Civil Practice Law and Rules).

An experienced commercial litigator with a particularly extensive background in litigation relating to trade regulation and corporate finance, Mr. Richards is admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court; the U.S. Courts of Appeals for all Circuits except the First and Federal Circuits; the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, Northern and Western Districts of New York; the District of Connecticut; and all New York State Courts. He has argued more than twenty appeals in the federal and state courts of appeals, including more than a dozen appeals in the Second Circuit.

MICHAEL M. BUCHMAN attended North Carolina State University’s Textile Engineering & Management program, later graduating cum laude from


Firm Résumé 20

Alfred University where he received a B.A. degree and divisional honors in history in 1988. In 1992, he received a J.D. degree from The John Marshall Law School where he was a member of an award winning International Moot Court team. The following year, he received an LL.M. degree in international antitrust and trade law from Fordham University School of Law.

Prior to joining the Firm, Mr. Buchman served as an assistant attorney general in the Antitrust Bureau of the New York State Attorney General’s Office. Mr. Buchman’s practice has been devoted heavily to nationwide litigation in federal and state courts focusing on the prosecution of complex antitrust, consumer protection and privacy class actions.

Mr. Buchman has recently spearheaded an effort, on behalf of consumers and third-party payors, to challenge a variety of practices by pharmaceutical companies designed to prevent lower priced, therapeutically equivalent generic drugs from entering the market or to otherwise artificially inflate brand name prescription drug prices. He has served in a leadership capacity in these cases many of which have been resolved successfully. See In re Buspirone Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1413 (S.D.N.Y.)(JGK) ($90 million settlement); In re Relafen Antitrust Litigation, 01-12222-WGY (D. Mass.) ($75 million settlement pending); In re Augmentin Antitrust Litigation, 02 Civ. 445 (E.D. Va., Norfolk Div.) (HCM) ($29 million settlement). He has also participated in the prosecution of In re NASDAQ Market-Makers Antitrust Litigation, MDL 1023 (S.D.N.Y.) (RWS), which is one of the largest antitrust settlements in the more than one hundred year history of the Sherman Act ($1.027 billion).

The author or co-author of articles in international and domestic legal publications concerning procedure or competition law issues, Mr. Buchman has also served as a lecturer for the Practising Law Institute on state unfair deceptive acts and practices statutes.

In addition to his admission to practice in Connecticut and New York, Mr. Buchman is admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the United States District Courts for Arizona and Connecticut, the United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, and the United States Court of International Trade.

ARIANA J. TADLER has extensive experience litigating complex securities class actions, including certain high profile, fast-paced cases. In less than four years, she litigated three cases in the Eastern District of Virginia (aka the "Rocket Docket"), including In re MicroStrategy Securities Litigation, in which plaintiffs' counsel negotiated settlements valued at more than $150 million with the company and the auditor. Ms. Tadler is

also one of the principal liaison counsel on behalf of plaintiffs in the Initial Public Offering Securities Litigation, which is pending in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. In that capacity, she manages, on a day-to-day basis, more than 300 separate class actions which have been coordinated for pretrial purposes. Among the thousands of defendants in these actions are 55 of the most prominent investment banks in the United States and more than 300 corporate issuers.

Ms. Tadler has attended numerous lectures and seminars nationwide at which she has been a selected speaker on various topics. Recent conferences include: The Sedona International Conference, “International Electronic Information Management Discovery and Disclosure” (July 2005); ABA Panel Securities Section Meeting, "Recent Developments in Federal Securities Class Actions" (August 2005); 8th Circuit Judicial Conference, “Panel on E-Discovery;” Women’s Judicial Conference, "Ruling on Discovery in a High Tech World" (October 2005); SEC Institute Conference, “Staying Out of Trouble with the SEC, Analysts and the Plaintiff’s Bar” (October 2005); Morrison & Foerster LLP/NASDAQ, Panel Series: “Corporate Board Member Liability: How Your Personal Assets Could Be At Risk In the Event Of Corporate Litigation;” PLUS Seminar: “Corporate Governance And Corporate Risk: Implications Of Sarbanes-Oxley For Underwriting And Claims” (February 2005); Mealey’s Advanced E-Discovery Conference (September 2004); Directors and Officers Symposium: An Overview of the Mediation Process; Practicing Law Institute, Symposium: “D&O Liability and Insurance 2004: Directors & Officers Under Fire;” National Economic Research Associates: IPO Allocation; and American Bar Association: Pros and Cons of Laddering Cases. Ms. Tadler is also a member of the Steering Committee of The Sedona Conference and has been a selected speaker on various panels regarding “Electronic Document Retention and Production.” She is also an active member of the New York Inn of Court.

Ms. Tadler is a member of the firm's Management Committee and Hiring Committee, and serves as a mentor to the firm's associates.

Ms. Tadler graduated from Hamilton College in 1989 with a Bachelor of Arts degree. In 1992, she received her J.D. from Fordham University School of Law, where she was the Articles and Commentary Editor of the Fordham Urban Law Journal, a member of the Moot Court Board and the 1990 recipient of the American Jurisprudence Award in Criminal Law. She is the co-author of "Damages in Federal Securities Litigation," Securities Litigation 1991: Strategies and Current Developments, Practicing Law Institute, 1991.


Firm Résumé 21

Ms. Tadler is admitted to the Bars of the States of New York and New Jersey, as well as the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit. In addition, she is a member of the Federal Bar Council, the American Bar Association, the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the New York State Bar Association and the New York County Lawyers Association. Ms. Tadler is also involved in various charity and community organizations. She is currently a board member and Co-Chair of Development for MFY Legal Services.

LEE A. WEISS earned his undergraduate degree from Emory University in 1988 and his J.D. degree, with honors, from The George Washington University in 1991.

Mr. Weiss focuses his practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers, as well as complex commercial litigation. His extensive securities fraud litigation experience includes significant settlements for class members in In re IKON Office Solutions Securities Litigation (E.D. Pa.) and In re Computer Associates Securities Litigation (E.D.N.Y.). Mr. Weiss currently represents investors in In re Sara Lee Securities Litigation (N.D. Ill.), In re Bayer AG Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), and In re Atlas Air Worldwide Holdings Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.). Additionally, Mr. Weiss currently represents purchasers of deferred variable annuities in several fraud class actions in which Milberg Weiss is lead counsel, including Nelson v. Pacific Life Insurance Company (S.D. Ga.) and Douglass v. American United Life Insurance Co. (Ind.).

Mr. Weiss is a member of the Firm’s Hiring and Technology Committees, and serves as a mentor to the Firm’s associates. Mr. Weiss is also a member of the American Bar Association. In addition to the New York State Bar, Mr. Weiss is admitted to the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Fourth and Eleventh Circuits.

LORI G. FELDMAN protects the rights of shareholders in federal and state courts across the nation. From 2000 through mid-2005, she served as Managing Partner of the Firm’s Seattle Office. While she is now practicing in the Firm’s New York Office, Ms. Feldman continues to maintain close ties to Washington State and the Pacific Northwest.

Ms. Feldman is the daughter of retired public employees and understands the importance of protecting the investments of all workers and their families against corporate fraud. In 2002-2003 and 2004-2005, she was

named a “Rising Star of Washington Law” by her fellow practitioners in Seattle. Rising Stars are considered to be Washington’s top lawyers under the age of 40.

In addition to lecturing on class action practice, she recently served as Co-Chair of the Continuing Legal Education Committee of the Federal Bar Association for the Western District of Washington.

Ms. Feldman’s representative recoveries exceed $100 million. Recently, she recovered millions of dollars for class members in litigation involving ConAgra Foods, Inc. (D. Neb.), Amazon.com (W.D. Wash.) (settlement pending approval), Paradigm Medical Industries (D. Utah), SpectraLink Corporation (D. Colo.) and Cutter & Buck (W.D. Wash.). She is currently representing shareholders in litigation involving, among several others, Washington Mutual, Inc. (W.D. Wash.), Select Medical (E.D. Pa.), Rhythms Net Connections (D. Colo.), Gilead Sciences, Inc. (N.D. Cal.), and Digimarc Corporation (D. Oregon). She is also currently representing participants and beneficiaries of retirements plans in ERISA litigation involving Pfizer, Inc. (S.D.N.Y) and The Coca-Cola Company (N.D. Ga.).

Ms. Feldman’s zealous advocacy has resulted in important reported decisions by courts interpreting the federal securities laws, including but not limited to Gebhardt v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., 335 F.3d 824 (8th Cir. 2003) (important loss causation and materiality appellate court ruling); In re Rhythms NetConnections Securities Litigation, 300 F. Supp. 2d 1081 (D. Colo. 2004) (denying motion to dismiss); Kerns v. SpectraLink Corp., No. 2-D-263, 2003 U.S. Dist. Lexis 11711 (D. Colo. July 1, 2003) (granting class certification); and In re Secure Computing Corp., 184 F. Supp. 2d 980 (N.D. Cal. 2001) (denying motion to dismiss).

Ms. Feldman is admitted to the Bars of the States of Washington and New York.

ELAINE S. KUSEL graduated from Boston University in 1987 with B.A. degrees in economics and international relations. While working full time, Ms. Kusel attended The George Washington University Law School as a full time student, graduating in 1994.

Ms. Kusel represents clients in complex litigation stemming from corporate wrongdoing in a variety of areas, focusing particularly on federal securities and consumer fraud actions.

Most notably, Ms. Kusel played a leading role in the Firm’s prosecution of a securities fraud action against Lucent Technologies in which lead counsel recovered more than $600 million for injured class members—the third largest securities settlement in history.

In addition, Ms. Kusel is the lead attorney in the Abdullah v. Pfizer case, in which she represents Nigerian


Firm Résumé 22

children enrolled in a clinical trial by Pfizer without their families’ informed consent. The Abdullah case is notable because it is one of the first cases in which a Court determined that plaintiffs could proceed with a claim under the Alien Tort Claims Act against a corporate defendant for claims other than those related to war time conduct.

Ms. Kusel also represents whistleblowers bringing federal Qui Tam cases on behalf of individuals who have uncovered fraud being committed by entities doing business with the federal government.

Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Ms. Kusel pursued her interest in public interest work by spending eight years working in the U.S. House of Representatives, eventually serving as legislative director and counsel to a member of Congress serving on the House Commerce Committee.

Ms. Kusel co-chairs the Firm’s Summer Associate Program and serves on the Firm’s Diversity Committee. She also led the Firm’s pro bono work with Trial Lawyers Care on behalf of the victims of September 11th. Ms. Kusel is a member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America, the New York State Bar Association and the American Bar Association. Ms. Kusel is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York, and the Eastern District of Michigan.

DANIEL B. SCOTTI focuses his practice primarily on litigating federal securities fraud class actions on behalf investors who have suffered economic harm as a result of the deceptive conduct of corporate wrongdoers. Mr. Scotti has extensive experience in this practice area and his efforts have contributed to a number of very favorable settlements for class members, including: In re MicroStrategy, Inc. Securities Litigation (E.D. Va.); In re Box Hill Systems Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.); In re Penn Treaty American Corp. Securities Litigation (E.D. Pa.); In re Motorola, Inc. Securities Litigation (N.D. Ill.). Mr. Scotti is one of the principle lead attorneys representing the certified Class in an action against Canadian telecommunications giant Nortel Networks Corporation, currently pending before Judge Richard M. Berman in the Southern District of New York

After receiving an LL.M. in securities regulation from the Georgetown University Law Center in 1994, Mr. Scotti joined the litigation department of Prudential Securities Incorporated where he defended the firm at more than fifty securities arbitration hearings in just one year. From 1995 though 1997, Mr. Scotti was associated with the Chicago law firm of Ungaretti & Harris, where he continued to hone his skills as a securities litigator.

Mr. Scotti is a member of the New York State and American Bar Associations and co-chairs the firm’s Summer Associate Program.

RACHEL S. FLEISHMAN graduated from New York University in 1989 with a B.A. degree in politics. She received her J.D. degree from St. John’s University School of Law, cum laude, in 1992, where she was an articles editor for the St. John’s Law Review. Ms. Fleishman served as a law clerk to United States District Judge Jed S. Rakoff.

Prior to joining Milberg Weiss in 2002, Ms. Fleishman was associated with the law firms Dewey Ballantine and Fried Frank Harris Shriver & Jacobson. At those firms, Ms. Fleishman’s practice included a broad range of complex commercial and securities litigation, as well as representation of clients in SEC, NASD and criminal investigations. Ms. Fleishman’s clients have included investment banks, top-tier banks, lending institutions and a variety of major manufacturing companies.

At Milberg Weiss, Ms. Fleishman’s practice includes securities litigation and complex commercial litigation.

Ms. Fleishman is admitted to the bar in New York and Massachusetts. Ms. Fleishman is also admitted to practice before the Sixth and Eleventh Circuit Courts of Appeals and the United States District Courts in the Southern, Eastern and Western Districts of New York.

BETH A. KASWAN received her B.B.A. degree from the University of Miami in 1973 and her J.D. degree from Boston College Law School in 1976. Ms. Kaswan has practiced with Milberg Weiss since 1998 where she has represented plaintiffs in cases involving securities and consumer fraud. Ms. Kaswan served in a leadership role in the Oxford Health Plan Securities Litigation, which eventually settled for $300 million, including $75 million against Oxford’s accountant, KPMG. She is litigating several other financial fraud matters, including a case against a Bermuda-based reinsurance company and KPMG alleging improper accounting for policyholder liabilities and improper amortization of deferred acquisition costs. Immediately before joining Milberg Weiss, Ms. Kaswan served in the Giuliani administration as New York City’s chief procurement officer, a deputy commissioner in the Department of Investigations and the Finance Department’s chief counsel.

Ms. Kaswan began her career at Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. and later served as a trial attorney with the U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division. In 1985, she joined the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York, and was promoted to Chief of Commercial Litigation and then Deputy Chief of the


Firm Résumé 23

Civil Division. While employed by the government, Ms. Kaswan litigated several high-profile cases to judgment, including the landmark case of United States v. Gleneagles Investment. Co., where following a multi-stage, thirteen-month trial, the fraudulent conveyance laws were first applied to set aside a leveraged buy-out. She also represented the Federal Reserve for its enforcement actions against the rogue bank, BCCI, leading to the global RICO plea agreement and forfeiture of BCCI’s $550 million of United States assets; the IRS for its $5 billion claim against Drexel, the Defense Department and MARAD for qui tam and other false claims actions against Goodyear Aerospace, Loral and General Dynamics and the FDA to enjoin the manufacture of adulterated generic drugs. See, e.g., United States v. Gleneagles Investment Co., 565 F. Supp. 556 (“Gleneagles I”), 571 F. Supp. 935 (“Gleneagles II”), 584 F. Supp. 671 (“Gleneagles III”) (M.D. Pa. 1981), aff’d in part and rev’d in part sub. nom., United States v. Tabor Court Realty Corp., 803 F.2d 1288 (3d Cir. 1986); In re Smouha (“BCCI”), 136 B.R. 921 (S.D.N.Y. 1992); United States v. Davis, 803 F.Supp. 830 (S.D.N.Y. 1992), aff’d in part and rev’d in part sub. nom., United States v. General Dynamics Corp., 19 F.3d 770 (2d Cir. 1994); United States v. Barr Laboratories, Inc., 812 F.Supp. 458 (D.N.J. 1993).

Ms. Kaswan has received several awards from the Justice Department and the agencies she represented, including the Justice Department’s John Marshall award, Special Commendation from the Attorney General, a Superior Performance award from the Executive Office of U.S. Attorneys, Tax Division Outstanding Achievement awards, and awards from the FDA Commissioner and U.S. Customs Service. She has testified before the New York legislature as a government expert on money-laundering and lectured in Justice Department training programs on evidence and other subjects.

Ms. Kaswan is admitted to practice in the courts of the States of New York and Massachusetts, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern District of New York and the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

BENJAMIN Y. KAUFMAN earned his B.A. degree from Yeshiva University in 1985 and his J.D. degree from Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, Yeshiva University in 1988, where he was a Belkin Fellow, Belkin Scholar, and a member of the Cardozo Arts and Entertainment Law Journal. Mr. Kaufman also received a M.B.A. degree in finance from the Stern School of Business of New York University in 1999. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss in August of 1998, Mr. Kaufman was a court attorney for the New York State Supreme Court, New York County (1988-1990) and

principal law clerk to Justice Herman Cahn of the Commercial Division of the New York State Supreme Court, New York County (1990-1998).

Mr. Kaufman focuses on class action litigating on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers as well as complex commercial litigation. Mr. Kaufman is a member of the bars of New York, New Jersey, the United States District Courts for the Districts of New York and New Jersey and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.

CLIFFORD S. GOODSTEIN earned his A.B. degree from Harvard University in 1988 and his J.D. degree from New York University School of Law in 1993. After graduation, he served as a law clerk to the Honorable Alex T. Howard, Jr., Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, and then as an associate at Reboul, MacMurray, Hewitt, Maynard & Kristol and Baker & Botts prior to joining Milberg Weiss in January of 1998.

Mr. Goodstein works on a variety of actions on behalf of classes as well as individuals in consumer fraud, securities, antitrust, health care, and other areas. Mr. Goodstein is a member of the bars of New York and New Jersey.

SETH D. RIGRODSKY received his B.A. degree magna cum laude, with honors in history, from Brandeis University in 1985. In 1990, he received his J.D. degree, magna cum laude, from Georgetown University Law Center, were he was awarded Order of the Coif and served as a senior articles editor for the Georgetown University Law Journal. After graduation from law school, Mr. Rigrodsky was a law clerk to the Honorable Andrew G.T. Moore, II, of the Delaware Supreme Court.

Following his clerkship, Mr. Rigrodsky was associated with the law firms Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz in New York City, and Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell in Wilmington, Delaware, where he concentrated his practice on corporate and complex business litigation. In 1994, Mr. Rigrodsky joined Morris and Morris in Wilmington, Delaware, where he became a partner beginning in January 2000, and represented investors in numerous federal and state class and shareholder derivative lawsuits.

Mr. Rigrodsky is a member of the bars of the States of Delaware and New York, the United States District Courts for Delaware and the Southern District of New York, and the Courts of Appeals for the Second, Third and Fourth Circuits.

PETER SAFIRSTEIN graduated from The George Washington University in 1978 with a B.A. degree. He received an M.A. degree in government


Firm Résumé 24

(concentration in international relations) from Georgetown University in 1980. In 1985, he earned his J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School where he was a member of the Brooklyn Law Review and the Moot Court Honors Society. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Safirstein was in private practice. In addition, Mr. Safirstein served as a staff attorney in the Enforcement Division for the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission from 1985-1990. In 1988-89, Mr. Safirstein was designated as a special assistant United States attorney in the Southern District of New York where he was part of the trial team which prosecuted United States v. Regan, (the “Princeton/Newport” case) and United States v. Lisa Jones. Mr. Safirstein later served as an assistant United States attorney in the Southern District of Florida.

Mr. Safirstein is a member of the American Bar Association and the Association of the bar of the City of New York. Mr. Safirstein is a member of the Bars of the State of New York and the State of New Jersey and is also admitted to practice before the Supreme Court of the United States, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Third Circuits, the District Court of the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District Court of New Jersey.

MAYA S. SAXENA graduated from Syracuse University summa cum laude in 1993 with a dual B.A. degree in policy studies and economics, and graduated with a J.D. degree from Pepperdine University School of Law in 1996.

Prior to joining Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman in 1998, Ms. Saxena was employed as an assistant attorney general. As an assistant attorney general, Ms. Saxena represented the State of Florida and its agencies and officers in civil cases at the appellate and trial level, and prepared amicus curiae briefs in support of state policy goals attendant to issues presented in state and federal court cases. Ms. Saxena also represented the Florida Highway Patrol and other law enforcement agencies in civil forfeiture trials.

Ms. Saxena currently specializes in securities fraud litigation, and was involved in several significant cases which have resulted in significant recoveries for defrauded investors, including, among others, cases such as In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation; In re Sensormatic Inc. Securities Litigation; In re Hamilton Bancorp Inc. Securities Litigation, and In re Aviation Sales Inc. Securities Litigation. Ms. Saxena is presently serving as lead or co-lead counsel in numerous federal class action securities cases in the Southeast.

Ms. Saxena is a member of the Palm Beach County Bar Association, and the American Bar Association. Ms. Saxena was recently recognized in the South Florida

Business Journal’s “Best of the Bar” as one of the best lawyers in South Florida. Ms. Saxena is a member of the Florida State Bar, and is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts for the Southern, Northern and Middle Districts of Florida, as well as the Eleventh and Fifth Circuit Courts of Appeals.

JOSEPH P. GUGLIELMO graduated cum laude from The Catholic University of America in 1992 with a B.A. degree in political science. In 1995, Mr. Guglielmo graduated from the Columbus School of Law at The Catholic University of America where he received a certificate of public policy in addition to his J.D. degree.

Mr. Guglielmo is the co-author of “Class Actions In The Healthcare Context” which was published for the following healthcare conferences: “Class Action Health Care Litigation,” ALI-ABA Health Care Law and Litigation Conference, 1999; “Class Actions: HMOs and Health Care Providers Under Attack,” ALI-ABA Life and Health Insurance Litigation Conference, 2000; “Providers (Suits by Doctors and Hospital Class Actions),” ALI-ABA Health Care Law and Litigation Conference, 2000; “The Application of ERISA and RICO Theories in the Age of Managed Care,” The Judges And Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert, 2000; and “Health Care Litigation: What You Need to Know After Pegram,” Practicing Law Institute, 2000. Mr. Guglielmo is also the co-author of “An Overview Of Class Action Litigation In the Managed Care Context” which was published for the following healthcare conferences: “Provider Suits by Doctors and Hospitals v. HMOs,” ALI-ABA Health Care Law and Litigation Conference, 2001, and American Society of Medical Associations Counsel, Fall 2002.

Mr. Guglielmo is a member of the New York State, District of Columbia and American Bar Associations and the Association of the Bar of the City of New York. Mr. Guglielmo was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1996, the District of Columbia Bar in 1997 and the United States Supreme Court in 2003. He is also admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the District of Colorado.

BRIAN C. KERR graduated summa cum laude from the University at Albany in 1993, where he was valedictorian, a member of Phi Beta Kappa, co-founder of the Presidential Honors Society, and the recipient of the Karp Prize in Economics. In 1996, he received his J.D. degree from Hofstra University, where he was a member of the Hofstra Law Review and a Dean’s Scholar. He was admitted to the bar of the State of Connecticut in 1996 and the State of New York in 1997.

Mr. Kerr joined the Firm in 1998. His practice focuses on securities litigation, consumer fraud,


Firm Résumé 25

deceptive insurance sales practices, commercial litigation and mass torts. Mr. Kerr has been actively involved in prosecuting complex lawsuits against the following companies and/or their officers and directors: Tyco International, Ltd., Vivendi Universal, S.A., The News Corporation Ltd., Twentieth Century Fox Film Ltd., Paramount Pictures Corp., Sony Pictures Entertainment, Inc., Universal City Studios, Inc., Kmart Corp., Rite Aid Corp., Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., PricewaterhouseCoopers, KPMG, Nationwide Life Insurance Co., The Equitable Life Assurance Society of the United States, General Instrument Corp., Sulzer Orthopedics, Inc., and United States Gypsum.

Mr. Kerr is also actively involved in the Firm’s pro bono efforts, representing indigent prisoners in civil rights cases before the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, and working with Trial Lawyers Care to provide free legal assistance to the families of victims of the September 11th attacks.

Mr. Kerr is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York State Bar Association, and the Association of Trial Lawyers of America. Mr. Kerr is admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, as well as the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

KIM MILLER graduated with a B.A. degree with honors from Stanford University in 1992 with a double major in English and psychology. She earned her J.D. degree from Cornell Law School, cum laude, in 1995. While at Cornell, Ms. Miller acted as co-chair of the Women’s Law Symposium, as bench brief editor of the Cornell Moot Court Board, and as a member of the Board of Editors of the Cornell Journal of Law & Public Policy. She is admitted to practice in the States of California and New York and before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and the Northern, Southern, and Central Districts of California.

MICHAEL REESE graduated from New College in 1992 with a B.A. in history and thereafter received his J.D. degree from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1996. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Reese served as a trial attorney at the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office where he prosecuted violent felony and white collar crime.

Mr. Reese joined Milberg Weiss in 2000 and has practiced in both its California and New York offices. Mr. Reese’s work focuses on antitrust, securities and consumer fraud class action cases. Mr. Reese is a member of the state bars of New York and California and is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Courts for the Northern and Eastern Districts of

California, the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the U.S. District Court of Colorado as well as the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals.

PETER E. SEIDMAN earned his B.A cum laude from Hobart College in 1979, following which he served as a Peace Corps volunteer living and working among the Guarani, an indigenous tribe in Paraguay. He earned an M.A. degree in journalism in 1982 from the University of Michigan and subsequently worked as a journalist for a variety of publications. In 1994, he was awarded a J.D. degree cum laude from the University of Michigan Law School.

Mr. Seidman joined Milberg Weiss in 2000 as an associate. He actively engages in the investigation and prosecution of securities litigation on behalf of defrauded investors. Before joining Milberg Weiss, he was an associate with the New York law firm of Orans, Elsen & Lupert LLP for five years, where he was active in both civil and white collar criminal litigation in federal and state courts.

Mr. Seidman is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United States District Courts for the Northern, Southern, and Eastern Districts of New York.

ANITA BRASS KARTALOPOULOS graduated with a B.A. degree from the University of Toledo, with honors in 1974, majoring in classics, and graduated from Seton Hall Law School in 1982, with emphasis on health care law. Ms. Kartalopoulos works primarily in the areas of insurance, consumer fraud, securities and managed care. Before joining Milberg Weiss in 1998, she was in government service in the State of New Jersey, holding several positions including deputy commissioner of insurance for life and health, director of legal regulatory affairs for the Department of Health and Senior Services and executive director of the New Jersey Real Estate Commission.

As deputy commissioner of insurance she managed the New Jersey Insurance Department’s Multi-State Task Force investigating the sales practices of the Prudential Insurance Company. She also served on the Board of Directors of MBL Insurance Company as a rehabilitator and managed litigation pursuant to the company’s rehabilitation.

Thereafter as director of legal and regulatory affairs for the Department of Health and Senior Services, Ms. Kartalopoulos was responsible for litigation management, the development of all regulations implementing the New Jersey Healthcare statutes, the development and implementation of a streamlined Certificate of Need (CN) law, and the development of stringent prompt payment regulations to ensure that


Firm Résumé 26

HMO’s meet contractual obligations to physicians and ensure the stability of the health care network for the benefit of consumers.

As executive director of The New Jersey State Real Estate Commission, Ms. Kartalopoulos was responsible for implementing consumer disclosure/protection regulations which had been long opposed by the New Jersey real estate industry. She was also responsible for all disciplinary investigations and hearings against realtors, the inspection and registration of out of state land sales marketed in the State of New Jersey, continuing licensing of 84,000 realtors and brokers and the on-going development of real estate regulations. Ms. Kartalopoulos also worked with New Jersey Attorney General Deborah Poritz in the development of Megan’s Law.

Prior to government service, Ms. Kartalopoulos specialized in local government law and land use representing a number of municipal governments, planning boards and boards of adjustment. She was responsible for litigation before both the State and Federal Courts, and negotiated significant settlements with the New Jersey Council on Affordable Housing (COAH) for the benefit of low income residents of the State.

Ms. Kartalopoulos was admitted to the bar of New Jersey and the U.S. District Court, District of New Jersey, the same year. She is also admitted to the U.S. Courts of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and the 3rd Circuit.

MITCHELL M. BREIT graduated with a B.A. degree from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1972 and received his J.D. degree from Southwestern University School of Law in Los Angeles in 1979.

Mr. Breit serves as co-liaison counsel in cases involving the pharmaceutical product Serzone consolidated in New York Supreme Court. He maintains an active mass tort practice that includes Fen-Phen, Zyprexa, and Vioxx pharmaceutical litigation and consumer class actions involving the banking and boating industries. He was class co-counsel and court-appointed depository custodian in groundwater contamination litigation in the Southern District of New York involving the gasoline additive MTBE. He formerly represented the County of Suffolk, New York and the Suffolk County Water Authority in their claims against the petroleum industry for MTBE contamination. Mr. Breit was also co-counsel in union health and welfare fund tobacco litigation, which included multiple class actions in numerous jurisdictions.

Mr. Breit has been a frequent panelist at Mealey’s litigation conferences involving toxic and mass torts and groundwater contamination.

Mr. Breit is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, where he served on the Art Law Committee, the Committee on State Courts of Superior Jurisdiction, the Committee on Federal Legislation, and currently the Committee on the Judiciary; the Association of Trial Lawyers of America; and the New York State Trial Lawyers Association. Mr. Breit is admitted in New York, New Jersey and Virginia and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, the District of New Jersey, the Eastern District of Virginia and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit.

WAI Y. CHAN graduated from Duke University in 1987 with a B.A. in economics and history. He received his J.D. from Brooklyn Law School in 1994. Mr. Chan is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York and the State of New Jersey.

BRUCE D. BERNSTEIN graduated from the University of Vermont in 1994 with a B.A. degree. In 1997, he earned his J.D. degree from The George Washington University Law School.

Mr. Bernstein joined Milberg Weiss in 1999. His practice focuses primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers, as well as complex commercial litigation. His extensive securities fraud litigation experience includes being a member of the team that achieved a significant settlement for class members in In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.). He currently represents investors in In re Merck & Co., Inc. Securities, Derivative & "ERISA" Litigation (D. N.J.), In re Martha Stewart Living Omnimedia, Inc. Securities Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), and In re PNC Financial Services, Inc. Securities Litigation (W.D. Pa). He also represents certain policyholders of an insurance company in a breach of contract class action pending in Florida state court.

Mr. Bernstein is also Co-Chair of the Young Lawyer's Division of UJA-Federation of New York, and Corporate Fundraising Chair for Seeds of Peace (a non-profit, non-political organization that helps teenagers from regions of conflict around the world learn the skills of making peace). He has received the Binyan Young Leadership Award from UJA.

Mr. Bernstein is a member of the New York County Lawyers Association and the American Bar Association. He is admitted to the New York State Bar and is admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.


Firm Résumé 27

CHRISTOPHER S. JONES received his B.A. degree in economics cum laude from the University of Akron in 1991, and his J.D. degree from DePaul University College of Law in 1996.

A partner in the firm's Boca Raton, Florida office, Mr. Jones focuses his practice on class action litigation, including securities class actions, consumer class actions, and corporate derivative litigation. Along with his colleagues, his recent class action victories and settlements include In re Friedman's, Inc. Secs. Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19503, 2005 WL 2175936 (N.D. Ga. 2005) (defeating motions to dismiss; case pending); In re AFC Enters. Secs. Litig., 348 F. Supp. 2d 1363 (N.D. Ga. 2004) (defeating motions to dismiss; $15 million settlement); In re Catalina Mktg. Corp. Secs. Litig., 390 F. Supp. 2d 1110 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (defeating motions to dismiss; case pending); In re Tropical Sportswear Int'l Secs. Litig., 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6129 (M.D. Fla. 2005) (defeating motions to dismiss; $8 million settlement pending); In re AES Secs. Litig., Case No. 1:03-CV-284 (S.D. In. 2004) ($5 million settlement); In re Intercept Secs. Litig., Case No. 1:03-CV-567 (N. D. Ga. 2004) ($5.5 million settlement); In re Mirant Secs. Litig., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26263 (N.D. Ga. 2003) (defeating motions to dismiss; case pending); In re UniCapital Corp. Secs. Litig., Case No. 00-2054 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (defeating motions to dismiss; $5.2 million settlement); and In re Hamilton Bancorp Secs. Litig., 194 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (S.D. Fla. 2002) (defeating motions to dismiss; $8.5 million settlement).

Mr. Jones has extensive experience in prosecuting complex corporate derivative actions. Notably, he was one of the lead counsel in the widely reported case involving FPL Group, Inc. (NYSE:FPL), a large public utility holding company. After nearly three years of intense litigation, which included reported victories on Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Klein v. FPL Group, Inc., 2004 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 919, 2004 WL 302292 (S.D. Fla. 2004)), and key discovery motions (Klein v. FPL Group, Inc., 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 19979 (S.D. Fla. 2003)), eight FPL executives, and their insurer, returned $22.25 million dollars in compensation to the company. The settlement represents a groundbreaking recovery because it implemented sweeping corporate governance provisions at FPL, and is the largest amount of money ever returned to a public company by members of its management in an executive compensation type lawsuit.

Mr. Jones is also the creator and author of The PSLRA Nugget, a well known blog which provides free information and analysis on recent securities class action opinions. Regular Nugget readers include attorneys from both the plaintiff and the defense bars, government agencies, economic analysts, D&O insurance companies, university professors, Fortune 500 general counsel,

pension funds, national news organizations, and even judges. Mr. Jones also serves on the firm’s Technology Committee.

Prior to practicing at Milberg Weiss, Mr. Jones was as an attorney with a prominent corporate defense firm in St. Louis, Missouri. At that firm, he practiced in a variety of areas, including complex litigation, class actions, and appellate litigation. His reported victories there spanned federal and state courts, including Clay v. Philip Morris Inc., 188 F.R.D. 483 (S.D. Ill. 1999); West Virginia-Ohio Valley Area I.B.E.W. Welfare Fund v. R.J. Reynolds Tobacco Co., 188 F.R.D. 425 (S.D. W. Va. 1999), Conway v. Royalite Plastics, Inc., 12 S.W. 3d 314 (Mo. 2001), and Fletcher v. Conoco Pipeline Co., 129 F. Supp. 2d 1255 (W.D. Mo. 2001), aff'd, 323 F.3d 661 (8th Cir. Mo. 2003).

KAREN ROGERS earned her B.A. degree from the University of California, Irvine, in 1983, her M.B.A. degree from Pepperdine University in 1990, and her J.D. degree from Southwestern University School of Law in 1996.

Ms. Rogers specializes in representing investors, including individual and institutional investors, in securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative litigation. Ms. Rogers has been with the Firm since March 1997. While at Milberg Weiss, Ms. Rogers has successfully litigated numerous class action lawsuits which have resulted in multi-million dollar recoveries for defrauded investors, including, among others, cases such as Mattel Securities Litigation, Accelerated Securities Litigation, and Hoeck v. CompUSA.

While at Southwestern, Ms. Rogers was on the Dean’s List from 1994-1995 and a member of the Law Review from 1995-1996. Ms. Rogers authored “Embryo Theft: The Misappropriation of Human Eggs at an Irvine Fertility Clinic Has Raised a Host of New Legal Concerns for Infertile Couples Using Reproductive Technologies,” 26 Sw. U.L. Rev. 1133 (1997). In 1996, Ms. Rogers served as judicial extern for The Honorable Ronald S.W. Lew, U.S. District Court of California.

Prior to law school, Ms. Rogers earned an NASD Series 7 securities license and worked in the securities industry for five years at Drexel Burnham Lambert’s Beverly Hills office.

Ms. Rogers is a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers, as well as the Los Angeles County, San Fernando Valley, and American Bar Associations. Ms. Rogers is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of California, as well as the United States District Court for the Central District of California.


Firm Résumé 28

PETER SLOANE graduated with honors from Johns Hopkins University in 1994 with a B.A. degree in international relations and received his J.D. degree from Georgetown University Law Center in 1997. Upon graduation from law school, Mr. Sloane clerked for the Honorable Anthony W. Ishii of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. While an undergraduate at Johns Hopkins, Mr. Sloane was selected to participate in the Paul H. Nitze School of Advanced International Studies graduate program in Bologna, Italy, where he earned a graduate diploma in international relations. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Sloane was associated with Milbank, Tweed, Hadley

& McCloy LLP, where he specialized in complex commercial litigation and consumer mass actions. He is fluent in Italian and conversant in French and Hebrew.

Mr. Sloane currently represents purchasers of securities in several securities fraud class actions, including Irvine v. ImClone Systems, Inc., et al. (S.D.N.Y.) and In re Sears, Roebuck & Co. Securities Litigation (N. D. Ill.).

Mr. Sloane is admitted to practice before the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

OF COUNSEL

PATRICIA M. HYNES is a trial lawyer and retains her “Of Counsel” status to the firm once known as Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach LLP. Ms. Hynes is continuing her long and distinguished association with the newly named Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman LLP, where she specializes in complex securities and commercial litigation. She received her law degree from Fordham Law School where she was a member of the Law Review. Ms. Hynes served as law clerk to Joseph C. Zavatt, Chief Judge of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York, and was an Assistant United States Attorney in the Southern District of New York from 1967 to 1982 where she held several executive positions, including Executive Assistant U.S. Attorney.

A Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers, Ms. Hynes has taught Trial Advocacy at Harvard Law School, Fordham Law School and the National Institute of Trial Advocacy. Ms. Hynes is a member of the American Law Institute and has served on the Advisory Committee to the Federal Judicial Code Revision Project from 1996 to 2001. Ms. Hynes has been a lecturer for the Practicing Law Institute since 1980 and was Chair of its Civil RICO Program from 1984 to 1991.

Ms. Hynes has been included in the list of Best Lawyers in America since 1993 and more recently has been included in Who’s Who in American Law and the Euromoney Guide to the World’s Leading Litigation Lawyers. Ms. Hynes has also been included in The National Law Journal’s “Profile of America’s Top 50 Women Litigators” (December 17, 2001) and its Survey of The Fifty Most Influential Women Lawyers in America (March 30, 1998). In 2004, Ms. Hynes received a special award from The Legal Aid Society of

New York for her work as Chair of the Board of Directors in successfully restructuring the Society.

In March, 2005, Ms. Hynes received The Simon H. Rifkind Award from The Jewish Theological Seminary “for demonstrated commitment to the letter of the law and for distinguished public service.” In April, 2005, Ms. Hynes was the recipient of the William M. Tendy Award for Public Service presented by the Robert B. Fiske Association. In June, 2005, Ms. Hynes received The Joan L. Ellenbogen Award from The New York Women’s Bar Association.

Presently, Ms. Hynes chairs the Merit Selection Panel for Magistrate Judges for the Southern District of New York and since December, 2003, has been Chair of the Board of Directors of The Legal Aid Society. Ms. Hynes also serves as a member of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals Rules Committee and has served as a member of the Planning and Program Committee for the Judicial Conference of the Second Circuit from 1998 to 2001. Ms. Hynes recently has been appointed a member of The Departmental Disciplinary Committee of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, First Judicial Department. From 1994 through 2001, Ms. Hynes served as a member of the Mayor’s (Giuliani) Advisory Committee on the Judiciary.

Ms. Hynes served as Chair of the American Bar Association’s Standing Committee on the Federal Judiciary from July 2000 to August 2001, having previously served as the Second Circuit Representative on that Committee from 1995 to June 2000. Ms. Hynes served as a member of the ABA’s Commission on the 21st Century Judiciary (2002-2003). Ms. Hynes has also served as a member of the ABA’s Litigation Section Council (1989-1992) and was Chair of the Litigation


Firm Résumé 29

Section’s Securities Litigation Committee (1987-1989); Co-Chair of its Pre-Trial Practice and Discovery Committee (1992-1994) and has served as a member of the Litigation Section’s Task Force on Civil Trial Practice Standards. Ms. Hynes also is a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation.

An active member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, Ms. Hynes served as Chair of its Federal Courts Committee from 1992 to 1995 and was a member of its Executive Committee from 1984 to 1988. From 1982 to 1984, Ms. Hynes served as Secretary of that organization. Ms. Hynes has also served as a Vice President of the Federal Bar Council from 1996 to 2002 and previously served on its Board of Trustees from 1983 to 1991.

In July of 2002, Ms. Hynes was appointed a member of the New York City Charter Revision Commission by Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg. In March, 2002, Ms. Hynes was appointed a member of the Administrative Board for the Offices of the Public Administrator by Chief Administrative Judge Jonathan L. Lippman. In February, 2000, Ms. Hynes was appointed a member of the New York State Commission on Fiduciary Appointments by Chief Judge Judith S. Kaye of the New York Court of Appeals. From 1987 to 1990, Ms. Hynes served as a member of the New York State Commission on Government Integrity having been appointed by Governor Mario Cuomo and from 1981 to 1982 was a member of the New York State Executive Advisory Committee on the Administration of Justice having been appointed by Governor Hugh L. Carey.

JARED SPECTHRIE graduated from Harvard College with honors in 1954 having majored in economics. After four years as a deck officer in the United States Coast Guard, he received a M.B.A. degree in accounting from Rutgers University in 1959, graduating first in his class. He is a Certified Public Accountant in the State of New York and practiced accounting for several years with a major auditing firm. He was graduated from New York Law School in 1965, summa cum laude, where he was first in his class and valedictorian. He was admitted to the Bar in New York State in 1965, and is admitted to practice before the U.S. District Court in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Fifth Circuits. He has served on the faculty of New York Law School and has lectured on “Accountants’ Liability” for the Practising Law Institute. He has been engaged in the full-time practice of law since 1965 and has specialized in federal securities law litigation for the past several years. Mr. Specthrie was lead counsel in In re Viatron, MDL 138 (D. Mass.), where aggregate settlements exceeding $15 million were

obtained after several months of trial and a jury verdict on liability.

SOL SCHREIBER received a B.A. degree, cum laude, in 1952 from the City College of New York, and his LL.B. degree from Yale Law School in 1955.

From 1971 through 1978, Mr. Schreiber was a United States Magistrate Judge in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York where he conducted more than 1,500 criminal and 3,500 civil pretrial hearings and settled approximately 1,000 civil cases. In addition to trying numerous civil and criminal cases, Mr. Schreiber supervised pretrial practice in derivative, class and complex actions in the admiralty, antitrust, aviation, securities, directors’ and officers’ and product liability fields, including Berkey v. Kodak, Litton v. ATT, the Penn Central Commercial Paper Litigation, the New York Times and Readers’ Digest gender discrimination, the Argo Merchant-Nantucket stranding, and the Tenerife 747 collision cases.

From November 1978 to January 1982, when he joined Milberg Weiss, Mr. Schreiber served as the President and Chief Executive Officer of a unit of the Federation of Jewish Philanthropies of New York which provided centralized legal, risk management and insurance services for the Federation’s hospitals, homes for the aged, and health, education and community service agencies. He was Trial Counsel from 1955 through 1971 and Resident Counsel from 1966 through 1971 of the Brooklyn office of Liberty Mutual Insurance Co.

Mr. Schreiber has been a participant in numerous special project committees for the American Bar Association and the Second Circuit. From 1960 to present, Mr. Schreiber has been the Planning and Program Chairman of more than 125 national programs including ALI-ABA and PLI Continuing Professional Education national courses of study on evidence, civil practice and employment discrimination litigation in federal and state courts. He has been a frequent lecturer at professional programs and workshops on federal and state court civil procedure, federal and state court trial evidence and federal criminal practice and procedure. Mr. Schreiber was a reporter for the ABA Advocacy Task Force (1970-1971), which led to the formation of the National Institute for Trial Advocacy.

From 1972 to 1987, he served as an adjunct professor at Fordham Law School teaching courses in trial advocacy, product liability, mass torts and insurance disputes. He has been editor for more than 40 CLE course handbooks and major publications on civil practice and litigation, including ALI-ABA’s three-volume Civil Practice Guide, Litigation in Federal and State Courts (8th ed. 1998). Mr. Schreiber is a member


Firm Résumé 30

of the Board of Editors, Moore’s Federal Practice (2d ed.).

Presently, Mr. Schreiber is Court-Appointed Special Master in Marcos Human Rights Litigation. He was Special Master in the Pan American Lockerbie cases, the Agent Orange Litigation (March 1982-January 1984), and a series of other complex federal civil cases.

Mr. Schreiber was Judicial Member, Anglo American Exchange on Civil Procedure (March 1974), and Hearing Officer, N.Y. State Master Energy Plan (fall 1979). He is the recipient of the Francis Rawle Award for outstanding achievements in post-admission legal education (ALI-ABA, July 1985) and the Presidential Award, Legal Aid Society (November 1984). Mr. Schreiber is also the founder and co-chair of the Ovarian Cancer Research Fund, Inc.

Mr. Schreiber is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the American Law Institute. He is admitted to the bar of the State of New York, to the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York and to the Second Circuit Court of Appeals.

PAUL D. YOUNG received his B.A. magna cum laude from Yale University in 1981. He was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and granted with distinction in the history major. As a Fulbright Scholar, he studied at the Universitaet Bielefeld, Germany from 1981 to 1983. He graduated from Columbia University School of Law in 1986, where he was named a Harlan Fiske Stone Scholar.

Selected published decisions: In re APAC Teleservices, Inc. Securities Litigation, No. 97 Civ. 9145 (BSJ), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17908 (S.D.N.Y. Nov. 19, 1999); In re Ashanti Goldfields Securities Litigation, 184 F. Supp. 2d 247 (E.D.N.Y. 2002); In re Ashanti Goldfields Securities Litigation., No. 00 CV 717 (DGT)(RML), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 724, (E.D.N.Y. Jan. 7, 2003); Berwecky v. Bear, Stearns & Co., 197 F.R.D. 65 (S.D.N.Y. 2000); Dorchester Investors v. Peak International Limited, 134 F. Supp. 2d 569 (S.D.N.Y. 2001); Dorchester Investors v. Peak TrENDS Trust, No. 99 Civ. 4696 (LMM), 2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 3067 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 26, 2002); Dorchester Investors v. Peak TrENDS Trust, No. 99 Civ. 4696 (LMM) (FM), 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 1446 (S.D.N.Y. Feb. 3, 2003); In re General Instrument Corp. Securities Litigation, No. 96 C 1129, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17078 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 22, 2000); Hunt v. Alliance North American Government Income Trust, Inc., 159 F.3d 723 (2d Cir. 1998); Lipinski v. Skinner, 781 F. Supp. 131 (N.D.N.Y. 1991); In re MTC Electronic Technologies Shareholder Litigation, 898 F. Supp. 974 (E.D.N.Y. 1995); In re MTC Electronic Technologies Shareholder Litigation, 993 F. Supp. 160

(E.D.N.Y. 1997); Olczyk v. Cerion Technologies, Inc., 721 N.E.2d 732; (Ill. App. Ct. 1999); Siemer v. Associates Financial Services., No. CV-97-281-TUC-JC (JMR), 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22784, (D. Ariz. July 23, 1999); Siemer v. Associates First Capital Corp., No. CV 97-281 TUC JMR (JCC), 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 12810 (D. Ariz. Mar. 30, 2001); Siemer v. Associates First Capital Corp., No. CV 97-281-TUC-JC (JMR), 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 21244, (D. Ariz. Dec. 14, 2000). He was a guest lecturer on predatory lending at the annual meetings of the NAACP in July 2001 and July 2002.

Mr. Young is a member of the New York City Bar Association. Mr. Young is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern, Northern and Eastern Districts of New York and the United States Courts of Appeals for the First, Second, Fourth, Fifth and Seventh Circuits and the United States District Court for the District of Arizona.

HONORABLE GERI D. PALAST, Of Counsel to Milberg Weiss Bershad & Schulman, is a Root-Tilden Public Service Law Scholar from New York University School of Law, and an honors graduate of Stanford University. Ms. Palast directs the Firm’s program reaching out to institutional investors in areas of litigation, policy and public affairs. Formerly, she was the founder and executive director of the Justice at Stake Campaign, a national organization working to ensure fair and impartial courts. From 1993-2000, she was confirmed by the U.S. Senate to serve as Assistant Secretary of Labor for Congressional and Intergovernmental Affairs during President Clinton’s two terms under Labor Secretaries Robert Reich and Alexis Herman. She also served on the President’s Interagency Council on Women, where she chaired the Committee on Women in the Global Economy. The Committee monitored U.S. compliance with the Beijing Platform for Women. She was a member of the U.S. delegation to Women 2000 at the United Nations. Her focus was the impact of globalization on women.

Prior to joining the Clinton Administration, Ms. Palast was the Political and Legislative Director of Service Employees International Union, 1981-1993. In 1979, she established and ran the Washington office of the National Employment Law Project, a program of the Legal Services Corporation. Earlier in her career, she worked for the National Treasury Employees Union and AFSCME (American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees).

Throughout her career, Ms. Palast has organized and directed numerous broad-based national and grassroots legislative and issue campaigns. She founded and co-chaired the bipartisan coalition that was responsible for enacting the landmark Family and Medical Leave Act.


Firm Résumé 31

As Assistant Secretary, she was a leader in the successful policy and legislative efforts to enact the minimum wage increase, the Workforce Investment Act—the overhaul of the nation’s employment and training system, Welfare to Work, School to Work, and the historic congressional ratification of the International Labor Organization (ILO) international convention against abusive child labor. She worked on numerous pension reform legislative and regulatory matters. She has also been a strategic adviser to many electoral campaigns.

Ms. Palast has served on numerous boards and advisory committees. She has also lectured at colleges and universities. Ms. Palast is admitted to practice in the District of Columbia, and she is an inactive member of the California State Bar.

DEBORAH M. STURMAN received a Prix d’ Excellence from the Royal Brussels Conservatory and a J.D. degree from the University of California at Los Angeles School of Law.

Ms. Sturman conceived of, and, together with senior partner Melvyn Weiss, filed the first suits in United States courts on behalf of Holocaust-era slave labor victims, leading to recoveries of approximately $7 billion. She has been profiled in both The Wall Street Journal and Financial Times for her innovative lawyering and regularly appears as a legal commentator in the German, Dutch, French, Swiss and Belgian media as well as on numerous international and national Continuing Legal Education panels for complex and international litigation.

Since the early 1990s, Ms. Sturman has represented Holocaust survivors and their heirs seeking restitution of real property in the former East Germany “Aryanized” during World War II, and assisted European investors in connection with their United States investments. She is fluent in German and Dutch/Flemish and conversant in French and Italian.

Ms. Sturman is admitted to the Bar of California, and the Supreme Court of the State of California. She is also admitted to the Federal Circuit Court of Appeals, the U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit, the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

DAVID K. BERGMAN graduated with a B.A. degree in American studies from Brandeis University in 1986. He earned a J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School in 1989. Mr. Bergman practices primarily in the field of class action securities fraud and spends a large percentage of his time representing Milberg Weiss as a liaison with public funds and other institutional investors. Mr. Bergman is regularly sought out as a

speaker on a wide variety of topics relating to, among other things, securities fraud, myriad facets of corporate governance, and the fiduciary duties of a pension fund trustee. Mr. Bergman has served as lead and co-lead counsel in numerous securities fraud class actions, and has extensive experience representing investors and other claimants in the arbitration process.

Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Bergman also concentrated in the field of professional responsibility and ethics, serving as chief complex claims counsel for the New York State Bar in high exposure cases against lawyers and law firms all across New York State, where he also lectured on issues relating to professional responsibility and legal ethics, and served in various capacities on a number of professional responsibility committees and panels. Immediately prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Bergman was a principal in Frydman & Bergman, where he represented investors in arbitrations, securities fraud class actions and shareholder derivative actions. Mr. Bergman also served as an appellate advocate for numerous law firms, in both New York State and the United States Court of Appeals. He is admitted to practice in all Federal, State and Appellate Courts in New York.

REUBEN A. GUTTMAN graduated from the University of Rochester in 1981 where he received a B.A. degree in history. He graduated from Emory University Law School in 1985 where he received a J.D. degree.

Mr. Guttman’s practice involves complex litigation and class actions. He has represented clients in claims brought under the Federal False Claims Act, the Price Anderson Act, Department of Energy (DOE) statutes and regulations, securities laws, the WARN Act, RICO, and various employment discrimination, labor and environmental statutes. He has also litigated claims involving fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, antitrust, business interference and other common law torts.

Mr. Guttman has been counsel in cases generating some of the largest recoveries under the Federal False Cases Act including U.S. ex rel Johnson where over $300 million was recovered from the oil industry. He also served as lead counsel in a series of cases which resulted in the recovery of more than $30 million under the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act. Litigation brought by Mr. Guttman on behalf of nuclear weapons workers at “Manhattan Project” nuclear weapons sites resulted n congressional oversight and changes in procurement and sales practices.

Mr. Guttman’s publications include: “The False Claims Act: Holding Employers Accountable For Workplace Rights” (co-author, Employee Rights Quarterly, Aspen, Fall 2000); “The Dormant Commerce


Firm Résumé 32

Clause and Interstate Transportation of Waste,” University of Pennsylvania, Journal of Resource Management and Technology, June 1993; “Impact of OSHA Bloodbourne Disease Rule,” Medical Waste, Vol. 1, No. 1, Oct. 1992; “Supreme Court Holdings Benefit Landfill and Incinerator Operators,” Medical Waste, Vol. 1, No. 3, Dec. 1992; “Supreme Court Upholds Preemptive Powers of OSHA Act,” Medical Waste, Vol. 1, No. 4, Jan. 1993; “EPA Dialogue May Result in Rules for Commercial Buildings,” 2 Nat’l Journal of Asbestos in Buildings Litigation, 13, 1989; “The Asbestos Model: Labor and Citizens Groups and a Multi-Pronged Approach to Regulatory Change,” paper first presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill., Sept. 1, 1987; published as a chapter in Conflict Resolution and Public Policy, edited by Miriam K. Mills, Greenwood-Quorum Press, October 1990; “At Issue: Should Congress Pass Legislation That Would Extend The Asbestos Hazard Energy Response Act To All Public and Commercial Buildings,” Congressional Quarterly’s Editorial Research Reports, Vol. 1, No. 9, 1990; “Representation Campaigns and the Future of Labor: a Legal and Theoretical Perspective,” paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, Ill., April 4, 1988. Consulting Editor: The Regulatory Analyst: Medical Waste, a monthly publication, Warren Gorham Lamont, New York, N.Y., 1992-1994. Chapter Author and Advisory Board Member, “Environmental Management in Healthcare Facilities,” W.B. Saunders Company, April 1998.

Mr. Guttman has appeared on ABC National News and CNN, and has been quoted in major publications, including the Wall Street Journal and various national wire services.

In addition to his writings, Mr. Guttman has testified on environmental issues before committees of the United States House of Representatives and the United States Senate, and in 1992 advised President-elect Clinton’s transition team on labor policy. He has been an invited speaker on privatization and procurement issues at conferences sponsored by the United States Department of Energy (Oakland, California, 1997; Denver, Colorado, 1995). He was also invited to speak on employment discrimination by the Houston Regional Office of the United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) at its Fall 1998 Technical Conference in Beaumont, Texas. He has guest lectured at Swarthmore College, University of Pennsylvania, Johns Hopkins University, and The George Washington University.

Mr. Guttman is a founding member of the Association of Trial Lawyers of America (ATLA) Qui Tam Litigation Group and was a featured speaker on the

False Claims Act at the ATLA 2001 Annual Convention in Montreal, Canada. Mr. Guttman is admitted to practice law in Georgia (admitted in 1985), the District of Columbia (admitted in 1988), Pennsylvania (admitted in 1991) and New Jersey (admitted in 1991).

RUBY MENON graduated from Indiana University with a B.A. degree in journalism/English. She also received her J.D. degree from Indiana University.

Ms. Menon focuses primarily on providing services to public pension funds, employee benefit plans, foundations and endowments. She formerly served as the first general counsel of the Denver Employees’ Retirement Plan. Prior to that, she was the general counsel for the Indiana Public Employees’ Retirement Fund. At Indiana, one of her successful projects was to help develop the legal strategy and advocacy for the State’s Referendum lifting the long-standing prohibition on the pension funds’ investment in equity instruments.

As general counsel for two large multi-employer retirement plans for over 10 years, Ms. Menon developed expertise in many areas of employee benefits administration including legislative and regulatory affairs, investments, tax, fiduciary compliance and plan administration. She provided day-to-day legal advice to the Board and staff, and was responsible for drafting all legislative initiatives involving benefit and investment structure enabling the retirement plans to provide secure long-term benefits for State, public safety, and municipal employees.

Ms. Menon also served as a deputy prosecuting attorney for the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office in Indianapolis, IN. In addition she was an adjunct professor for the Indiana Wesleyan University in Indianapolis, IN where she taught Business Law, Ethics and Business Communications.

She is currently an instructor for the International Foundation of Employee Benefit Plan’s certificate training program (CAPPP™) for trustees, administrators and other key decision makers of employee benefit plans. She frequently participates as a speaker for various organizations serving U.S. and international public pension plans.

Ms. Menon is admitted to practice in the courts of the States of Indiana, Colorado and New York, as well as the United States District Courts for the Northern and Southern Districts of Indiana, the Colorado District Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Seventh and Eleventh Circuits, and the U.S. Supreme Court.


Firm Résumé 33

BRUCE GAMBLE received a B.S. from University of Louisville in 1979 and a J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 1989.

Mr. Gamble focuses primarily on providing services to public pension funds, employee benefit plans, foundations and endowments. He formerly served as General Counsel to the District of Columbia Retirement Board where he served as chief legal advisor to the Board of Trustees. Prior to that he served as President and CEO of the National Association of Investment Companies where he managed administrative, fiscal and programmatic activities, legislative and regulatory advocacy, media and public relations. Prior to that he served as Staff Director and Counsel to a Small Business Subcommittee in the U.S. House of Representatives where he exercised the Subcommittee’s oversight jurisdiction over existing Federal programs that promoted business development, access to capital and credit, enterprise zones, and community economic development.

He has also served as chief lobbyist, and then President and In-House Counsel to the National Bankers Association in Washington, D.C. where he formulated and implemented the legislative and regulatory strategic plan and served as principal liaison with Federal financial institutions supervisory agencies. Prior to this, he served in several senior staff positions on Capitol Hill for senior Members of the U.S. House of Representatives.

He currently serves as a member of the Executive Board of the National Association of Public Pension Attorneys (NAPPA), a professional and education organization whose membership consists exclusively of attorneys who represent public pension funds. He frequently participates as a speaker for various organizations serving U.S. and international public pension plans.

Mr. Gamble is admitted to practice in courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia.

SPECIAL COUNSEL

JAMES M. SHAUGHNESSY graduated cum laude from Adelphi University in 1967 with a B.A. degree in political science and cum laude from New York University School of Law in 1969. While at N.Y.U., Mr. Shaughnessy was elected to the Order of the Coif, was the administrative director of the moot court program, and, upon graduation, received the Benjamin F. Butler Award for scholarship and outstanding service to the law school.

Mr. Shaughnessy joined the firm of Casey, Lane & Mittendorf in New York City as a litigation associate in 1969 and became a litigation partner at that firm in 1976. In 1982, Mr. Shaughnessy joined the firm of Haythe & Curley as a litigation partner, and he was the managing partner of the firm for two years. In 1987, Mr. Shaughnessy joined the firm of Windels, Marx, Davies & Ives (now known as Windels, Marx, Lane & Mittendorf, LLP) as a litigation partner. He was the chairman of the Windels, Marx Litigation Department from 1988 through 1998, and was a member of the firm’s Executive Committee from 1990 to 1992. Mr. Shaughnessy joined Milberg Weiss in 2001.

Over the course of his career, Mr. Shaughnessy has specialized in commercial, securities, insurance, aviation and bankruptcy litigation. Mr. Shaughnessy was lead defense counsel for Pan American World Airways, Inc. in In re Air Disaster at Lockerbie, Scotland on December 21, 1988, M.D.L. 799 (TCP) (E.D.N.Y.), and tried that case on behalf of Pan Am to a jury for three months.

Mr. Shaughnessy is a member of the American Bar Association, the New York State Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and Federal Bar Council. Mr. Shaughnessy is admitted to practice in New York, California and New Jersey as well as before the United States Supreme Court, the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second, Fifth and Ninth Circuits, the United States District Courts for the Southern, Eastern, Northern and Western Districts of New York, the Southern District of California and the District of New Jersey, and the United States Tax Court.

ASSOCIATES


Firm Résumé 34

ARIEL ACEVEDO earned a B.B.A. degree from Baruch College of the City College of New York in 1991 and his J.D. degree from Fordham University School of Law in 1995. During and after college, Mr. Acevedo was employed as a financial analyst at various brokerage firms and in the banking industry. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Acevedo was employed at a large international law firm in New York, representing and counseling various multi-national corporations in complex, products liability litigation in the United States and other countries. At Milberg Weiss, Mr. Acevedo has represented numerous plaintiffs in employment discrimination litigation in federal and state courts. Additionally, he has participated in the negotiation of settlement agreements in securities actions, including In re Clarus Corporation, In re Hamilton Bancorp, and In re UniCapital Corporation.

Mr. Acevedo is admitted to practice in the courts of the States of Florida and New York, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern and Middle Districts of Florida and the Eastern and Southern Districts of New York.

ROBERT R. ADLER earned a B.S. degree with honors in psychology in 1991 from Union College and his J.D. degree from Thomas M. Cooley Law School in 1996, where he was a member of the Thomas M. Cooley Law Review from 1995-1996. While a law student, Mr. Adler was the recipient of three book awards for having earned the highest grade in the class in: “Lawyering Before Trial,” 1995; “Trial Workshop,” 1996; and “Workers Compensation,” 1996. As a law student, he also authored “Estate of C.W.: A Pragmatic Approach to the Involuntary Sterilization of the Mentally Disabled,” Nova Law Review, Spring 1996, Volume 20, Number 3.

As a practicing attorney, Mr. Adler was awarded “Pro Bono Attorney of the Month,” by the 15th Circuit Pro Bono Committee, South County Bar Association, in the Summer of 1999.

Mr. Adler’s practice areas include securities class action litigation and commercial litigation. He has obtained tens of millions of dollars worth of recoveries on behalf of defrauded investors against their stockbrokers, their broker-dealers, and issuers during his career as a securities litigator.

His involvement as co-lead counsel in In re Sunbeam Securities Litigation helped shareholders recover an aggregate settlement of $140 million. That settlement included $110 million from Arthur Andersen, representing the then second largest securities class action settlement ever obtained against an accounting firm. Other cases in which Mr. Adler achieved notable recoveries include: In re Phoenix International Securities Litigation (helped procure settlement of $4.22

million); lead counsel in In re Harbinger Corp. Securities Litigation (helped obtain settlement of $2.25 million); co-lead counsel in In re Insurance Management Solutions Group, Inc. Securities Litigation (helped obtain settlement of $2.1 million); co-lead counsel in PSINet Inc. Securities Litigation (helped recover $18.7 million settlement); co-lead counsel in Cheney v. CyberGuard Corporation, et al., (helped recover $10 million settlement).

Mr. Adler is admitted to practice law in the state of Florida, U.S. District Court, Southern District of Florida, U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, and the Eleventh Circuit.

PAUL J. ANDREJKOVICS graduated from Union College in 1992, Phi Beta Kappa, magna cum laude, with a B.A. degree in political science. In 1995, Mr. Andrejkovics received his J.D. degree from Albany Law School. He was admitted to the New York State Bar in 1996.

ROBERT R. BARRAVECCHIO earned his B.S. degree in industrial and labor relations from Cornell University in 1995. He earned his J.D. degree from New York Law School in 1998.

Mr. Barravecchio focuses his practice on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. He also has extensive litigation experience with regard to civil rights and employment discrimination actions where he has obtained significant settlements on behalf of victims of employment discrimination. Additionally, Mr. Barravecchio currently is part of the litigation team prosecuting actions against numerous mutual fund companies for charging excessive fees to mutual fund investors.

Mr. Barravecchio is a member of the Pro Bono Mediation Panel for the Southern District of New York and the New York State Bar Association. His published decisions include: Joseph v. New York Yankees Partnership, 2000 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 15417 (S.D.N.Y. October 19, 2000) and Wilson v. Toussie, 2003 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 23756 (E.D.N.Y. October 8, 2003).

Mr. Barravecchio was admitted to the bar of the State of New Jersey in 1998 and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey. He was also admitted to the bar of the State of New York in 1999, and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

KENT A. BRONSON received a B.A. from State University of New York at Binghamton in 1994. He graduated cum laude from University of Pittsburgh School of Law in 1998. During law school, Mr. Bronson


Firm Résumé 35

was a research editor on the Law Review and a recipient of the Dean's Scholarship.

Mr. Bronson's practice is focused on securities, consumer and class action litigation. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss in 2005, as an associate at another law firm, Mr. Bronson was part of the team that successfully litigated a securities fraud class action lawsuit alleging that a major credit card company inflated its profits with illegal charges to consumers. In re Providian Fin. Corp. Securities Litig. (E.D. Pa.). Also, in In re Coordinated Title Insurance Litigation (Sup. Ct. Nassau County), Mr. Bronson helped successfully litigate class actions against eight title insurers for allegedly violating New York's consumer protection act in connection with the sale of mortgage refinance title insurance.

Mr. Bronson is admitted to the New York State Bar.

ROSS B. BROOKS earned his B.A. degree from Cornell University in 1992, cum laude, and his J.D. degree from the University of Chicago Law School in 1997. Mr. Brooks’ practice is focused primarily on class actions brought on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss in 2003, Mr. Brooks worked as an associate with law firms in New York and New Jersey, concentrating in the areas of commercial litigation and intellectual property.

Mr. Brooks is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

JENNIFER S. CZEISLER graduated from Hofstra University in 1994 with a B.A. degree in psychology. After completing graduate degree work at Hunter School of Social Work (1994-95), she pursued a J.D. degree, which she earned in 1999 from the University of Miami School of Law, where she graduated cum laude. Ms. Czeisler was on the editorial board of the Law Review of Psychology, Public Policy & Law and earned numerous awards, including the Cali Excellence for the Future Award, Dean’s Certificate of Achievement Award and membership in the Phi Delta Phi National Honor Society. Ms. Czeisler is admitted to practice in the State of New York and is a member of the American Bar Association, where she is committed to her pro bono work with the American Bar Association Commission on Legal Problems of the Elderly.

DOMINIQUE DAY graduated with an A.B. from Harvard University, cum laude, in 1992, and from Stanford Law School in 1999.

Ms. Day's practice focuses primarily on class action litigation on behalf of defrauded investors. Ms. Day also has significant litigation experience through her work as a public defender at a community-based indigent defense provider in the South Bronx. In addition, Ms. Day has

experience as a non-profit director and has worked on Title VI, Title VII, voting rights, housing law, and welfare reform issues. Immediately following law school, Ms. Day was a law clerk for the Hon. Sterling Johnson Jr. of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York. She is admitted to the New York State Bar.

DAN P. DIETRICH graduated from the University of Florida in 1997 with a double major in finance and management. He earned his M.B.A. degree in finance from the University of Miami in 2000 and his J.D. degree from St. John’s University School of Law in 2003. While at St. John’s, Mr. Dietrich was the Editor-in-Chief of the New York International Law Review.

Mr. Dietrich focuses his practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and shareholders, as well as complex litigation. He currently represents shareholders in actions against various mutual fund families in which Milberg Weiss has been appointed sole lead counsel, including In re Goldman Sachs Fee Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) and In re Dreyfus Fee Litigation (W.D. Pa.).

Mr. Dietrich is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the American Bar Association. He is admitted to the bar of the State of New York and the State of Florida.

MICHAEL EISENKRAFT graduated magna cum laude with honors from Brown University in 2001, where he double-majored in history and comparative politics and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa. In 2004, Mr. Eisenkraft graduated Cum Laude from The Harvard Law School. Mr. Eisenkraft joined Milberg Weiss in 2004, after working as a summer associate for the firm after his first and second years of law school. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Eisenkraft spent the summers before law school working with the Vera Institute For Justice's Adolescent Portable Therapy Project and the Neighborhood Defender Service of Harlem.

Mr. Eisenkraft focuses his practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers, as well as complex commercial litigation and mass torts. Mr. Eisenkraft was admitted to the New Jersey State Bar in 2004 and the New York State Bar in 2005.

NEIL R. FRASER graduated from the University of Massachusetts, Amherst in 1989 with a B.A. degree in political science. In 1992, he received his J.D. degree from Whittier Law School. While in law school, Mr. Fraser externed for the Hon. Vincent P. Zurzolo, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Central District of California.

Mr. Fraser focuses his practice in the areas of securities, mass torts and employment discrimination.


Firm Résumé 36

He is currently one of the attorneys litigating on behalf of the plaintiffs in the recently certified class action alleging employment discrimination at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center, Cokely, et al. v. NYCCOC, et al. (S.D.N.Y.). In the mass torts practice, Mr. Fraser is a key part of the team representing over 330 individuals relating to injuries they sustained by their ingestion of the diet drug combination known as Fen-Phen in In re Diet Drug Litigation Venued in Bergen County. In securities, he worked on the successfully resolved In re Racing Champions Securities Litigation (N.D. Ill.) and is currently a member of the team handling the landmark In re IPO Securities Litigation, alleging various forms of market manipulation.

Mr. Fraser is admitted to practice in New York, New Jersey and the U.S. District Courts for the Southern District of New York, the Eastern District of New York and the District of New Jersey.

CARLA FREDERICKS graduated magna cum laude from the University of Colorado in 1997 and from Columbia Law School in 2001. While at Columbia, she was a Public Interest Fellow, a Charles Evans Hughes Scholarship recipient, and Executive Editor of the Columbia Journal of Environmental Law. Prior to law school, Ms. Fredericks served as an AmeriCorps volunteer in Colorado. She has performed extensive pro bono work on behalf of community organizations and the wrongfully convicted.

Ms. Fredericks joined Milberg Weiss in 2005. She focuses her practice on securities and class action litigation. She also has significant experience in civil rights litigation and labor and employment law.

Ms. Fredericks was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2002. She is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the New York County Lawyers Association.

RAMON M. GONZALEZ graduated from the University of California at Irvine with a B.A. degree in English in 1992, and from Stanford Law School in 1996. While in law school, Mr. Gonzalez was the recipient of scholarships from the Mexican-American Legal Defense and Education Fund (MALDEF) and the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC). After graduating from law school, Mr. Gonzalez pursued a writing career full time before returning to the practice of law.

Mr. Gonzalez focuses his practice in the areas of securities and consumer class actions. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Gonzalez worked as an attorney at Buresh Kaplan Jang & Feller in the Bay Area (Berkeley, CA), focusing on insurance defense, subrogation, products & premises liability, and inverse condemnation.

Mr. Gonzalez is a member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers (ABTL) and Consumer Attorneys Association of Los Angeles (CAALA). He is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of California and in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.

LAURA GUNDERSHEIM graduated magna cum laude, Phi Beta Kappa from University of California, Los Angeles in 2001 with a B.A. degree in Political Science and Women’s Studies and from Harvard Law School in 2004 where she was a founding member and the Vice-President of the Harvard Advocates for Reproductive Choices and an executive committee member of the Women’s Law Journal. While in law school, Ms. Gundersheim worked at the Lawyers’ Committee for Civil Rights, Health Law Advocates, The Hale & Dorr Legal Services Center and the Tenant Advocacy Project.

Ms. Gundersheim focuses her practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers and on shareholder derivative litigation. She also has been an integral member of the trial team in the landmark In Re Walt Disney Derivative Litigation case which has redefined the fiduciary duties of directors in public companies.

Ms. Gundersheim is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York and in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

SHANNON HOPKINS earned her B.A. degree from Bryant College in 1995, cum laude, and her J.D. degree from Suffolk University Law School in 2003, magna cum laude. Ms. Hopkins focuses her practice on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, she was associated with the Boston office of Berman DeValerio Pease Tabacco Burt & Pucillo, where she focused her practice on securities litigation. Ms. Hopkins is also a Certified Public Accountant and worked for a major public accounting firm before becoming an attorney. During law school, Ms. Hopkins was a member of the Journal of High Technology and authored a note entitled, “Cybercrime Convention: A Positive Beginning to a Long Road Ahead,” 2 J. High Tech. L. 101. Ms. Hopkins also served on the executive board of Phi Delta Phi.

Ms. Hopkins is admitted to practice in the courts of the States of Massachusetts and New York, as well as the United States District for the District of Massachusetts.

TODD KAMMERMAN received his B.A. degree cum laude with honors in politics from Brandeis University in 1999. In 2002, he received his J.D. degree from the Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law. While at Cardozo, Mr. Kammerman was named an Alexander Fellow, through which he worked as a judicial intern in


Firm Résumé 37

the chambers of the Honorable Joseph A. Greenaway, Jr., U.S.D.J. in Newark, NJ. Mr. Kammerman is a member of the bars of the States of New York and New Jersey and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey.

JOSHUA KELLER graduated from the University of North Carolina in 1998 and from Albany Law School of Union University in 2004. Prior to entering law school, Mr. Keller was a Trial Preparation Assistant in the New York County District Attorney’s Office. While a law student, Mr. Keller was associate editor of Albany Law Review and participated in the Senior Prize Trials competition.

Mr. Keller focuses his practice on securities class action litigation on behalf of defrauded individual and institutional investors. He currently represents shareholders in cases where Milberg Weiss has been appointed lead counsel, including In re Sears, Roebuck & Co. Sec. Litig. (N.D. Ill.).

Mr. Keller was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2005.

JANUARY L. KERR received her B.A. degree in government and law from Lafayette College and graduated from New York Law School, cum laude in 2001. While at NYLS, Ms. Kerr was active in the Moot Court Association and served as the Executive Editor. She received several awards including the Morris Orland Award for Excellence in Appellate Advocacy and the National Second Best Brief Award at the Burton D. Weschler Moot Court Competition. In 2001, Ms. Kerr was awarded the National Moot Court Association Honors and was elected into the Order of the Barristers. She was the Recipient of the Arthur Abbey Fellowship for public advocacy in 2002. Ms. Kerr has completed internships for the US Attorney’s Office for the Southern District of New York and the Honorable Kevin Thomas Duffy, U.S. District Judge, S.D.N.Y. Ms. Kerr joined Milberg Weiss in 2003.

Ms. Kerr is a member of the New York State Bar Association, New York County Lawyers Association, New Jersey State Bar Association and the American Bar Association. She is admitted to the Bars of the States of New York and New Jersey and the United States District Court for the State of New Jersey.

ARVIND B. KHURANA received his B.A. from State University of New York at Albany in 1993 and a J.D. from St. John’s University School of Law in 1999, Dean’s List Graduate. While in law school, Mr. Khurana was on the Dean’s List from 1995-1999 and a member of the American Bankruptcy Institute Law Review.

Mr. Khurana focuses his practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers, as well as complex commercial litigation. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss in August 2005, Mr. Khurana worked as an associate with a major international law firm in New York, concentrating in the area of complex commercial litigation.

Mr. Khurana is a member of the Federal Bar Council and admitted to practice in the state and federal courts of New York.

HANNAH K. KIERNAN graduated cum laude from the University of Michigan in 1994 with a B.S. degree in Nursing. She practiced nursing on a general medical floor at New York University Medical Center between 1994-1997. Ms. Kiernan graduated from Boston College Law School, where she was a Member of the Jessup International Moot Court Team, in 2000. While in law school, Ms. Kiernan was awarded a Public Interest Law Foundation, Distinguished Civil Rights Award for her paper entitled “Insanity or Death: The Choice that Violates the 8th Amendment.”

Ms. Kiernan is the co-author of “Reviewing Discovery Under HIPAA Privacy Rules” which was published in the New York Law Journal on August 17, 2001. She is also co-author of “The Patient Health Information and Quality Improvement Act of 2000: Health Care Consumers Beware - or Befuddled?” which was published in Mealey’s Managed Care Liability Report on December 8, 2000.

Ms. Kiernan is a member of the American Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association. In 2001, Ms. Kiernan was admitted to the New York State Bar. She is also admitted to practice before United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

SABRINA KIM earned her B.A. degree from the University of California, Los Angeles, in 1992, and her J.D. degree from the University of California, Hastings College of Law in 1996.

Ms. Kim focuses primarily on securities and consumer class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. Ms. Kim came to Milberg Weiss from the California Department of Justice, where she was a deputy attorney general in the Consumer Law Section for six years. During her tenture as a state prosecutor, Ms. Kim served on the Attorney General's Asian Pacific Islander Advisory Board and prosecuted several high-profile, complex state and federal consumer fraud cases, including those against major predatory lenders, notorious immigration consultants, and others who engaged in unlawful and deceptive business practices. Ms. Kim has served as a speaker or panelist on Business


Firm Résumé 38

and Professions Code Section 17200 and Proposition 64 for the Los Angeles County Bar Association Symposium and Mealey's Section 17200 Conference. Ms. Kim has also taught Consumer Law as an adjunct professor at Loyola Law School and is a board member of the Association of Business Trial Lawyers.

Ms. Kim is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of California, as well as the United States District Court for the Central District of California.

RYAN KRIGER received his B.S. and B.A. degrees from Rutgers University in 1996, and his J.D. from the New York University School of Law in 2004. Prior to entering law school and joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Kriger worked for GE Capital Corp. as a systems analyst in its Information Management Leadership Program, and then as an independent consultant specializing in databases and data analysis tools, primarily at the Federal Trade Commission in Washington, D.C.

Mr. Kriger specializes in antitrust, consumer protection class actions and complex litigation. He currently represents the direct or indirect purchaser classes in several matters including In re Del Monte Fresh Pineapples Antitrust Litigation (S.D.N.Y.), Cox v. Microsoft (N.Y. Sup. Ct.), and In re New Motor Vehicles Canadian Export Antitrust Litigation (D. ME).

Mr. Kriger was admitted to New York State Bar in 2005.

MATTHEW A. KUPILLAS graduated from the State University of New York at Albany in 1990 with a B.A. degree in philosophy. In 1994, Mr. Kupillas received his J.D. degree from New York University School of Law. Mr. Kupillas focuses his practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers, as well as complex commercial litigation. His involvement in the In re Oxford Health Plans, Inc. Securities Litigation helped shareholders recover an aggregate settlement of $300 million. Mr. Kupillas is a member of the New York State Bar Association and the American Bar Association. He is a member of the bar of the State of New York and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Wisconsin.

SHARON M. LEE graduated from St. John’s University in 1997 with a B.A. degree in Asian studies, and a M.A. degree in East Asian studies in 1998. Ms. Lee earned her J.D. degree from St. John’s University School of Law in 2001 where she was the notes and comments editor of The New York International Law Review, and the author of an article published therein. Ms. Lee is a member of the New York State Bar Association. She is admitted to the bar of the State of

New York, and is admitted to practice in the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

ANN M. LIPTON graduated with distinction from Stanford University in 1995, Phi Beta Kappa, with a B.A. degree in communication and psychology. In 2000, Ms. Lipton graduated magna cum laude from Harvard Law School, where she was awarded the Sears Prize for her second-year grade point average and served as an Articles Editor for the Harvard Law Review. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, she clerked for Chief Judge Edward R. Becker of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and Associate Justice David H. Souter of the United States Supreme Court. She was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2001.

DAVID B. MANNO graduated from Hofstra University in 1992 with a B.B.A. degree in management. He received his J.D. degree with distinction from Hofstra University School of Law in 1997. Mr. Manno primarily represents companies in connection with public and private financings, mergers and acquisitions, securities transactions and general corporate matters. During 2004, he served as an arbitrator in the Civil Court of New York Small Claims Part in Queens, New York. Mr. Manno is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York.

SHANNON M. MCKENNA received a B.S. from The College of New Jersey (formerly Trenton State College) in 2000. She graduated from The Catholic University of America, Columbus School of Law in 2003. While still in law school, Ms. McKenna gained trial experience in D.C. Superior Court representing indigent clients for D.C. Law Students in Court. After graduating from law school, Ms. McKenna served as federal judicial law clerk for the Honorable James McGirr Kelly, U.S.D.J., and for the Honorable David R. Strawbridge, U.S.M.J ., both of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Following her clerkship, Ms. McKenna joined Milberg Weiss, where she has become an integral part of several securities fraud matters.

Ms. McKenna focuses her practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. Ms. McKenna is a member of the bars of the States of New Jersey and Pennsylvania and is awaiting her New York bar examination results.

CAROLINE MARSHALL graduated from Dartmouth College in 1988 with a B.A. degree in philosophy. In 1992, she received her J.D. degree from Fordham University School of Law, where she was captain of Fordham’s National Moot Court Team and a recipient of an Excellence in Advocacy award. Ms. Marshall served as a trial assistant at the New York County District Attorney’s Office for three and a half


Firm Résumé 39

years and as an assistant corporation counsel for the Law Department for the City of New York for one year. Ms. Marshall then spent five years practicing criminal defense both in private practice and as a public defender. Before joining the Firm in 2003, she worked for Deloitte & Touche’s Business Intelligence Unit. Ms. Marshall is admitted to the New York State bar.

KRISTI STAHNKE MCGREGOR received her B.A. degree in political science, Phi Beta Kappa, from the University of Florida in 1995. She spent two years, 1993-94 and 1995-96, studying political science and economics at the Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universitaet Bonn in Bonn, Germany. In 1999 Ms. McGregor received her J.D. degree from Emory University School of Law, where she was the Research Editor of the Emory International Law Review and student law clerk to Justice Norman Fletcher of the Georgia Supreme Court.

After graduating law school, Ms. McGregor was a recipient of the German Chancellor Fellowship through the Alexander Von Humboldt Foundation, which allowed her to attend the Westfaelische Wilhelms-Universitaet Muenster in Muenster, Germany and receive her LL.M. degree magna cum laude in German civil law in 2001.

Prior to joining Milberg Weiss in 2002, Ms. McGregor practiced in the international section of a large Atlanta law firm. She focuses her practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors, as well as complex commercial litigation. She has particular experience in international litigation, primarily involving European companies. She is fluent in German. Ms. McGregor was admitted to the State Bar of Georgia in 1999, the New York Bar in 2003 and the Florida Bar in 2004.

JOHN MILLS earned his B.A. degree from Duke University in 1997, and his J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School in 2000, cum laude. Mr. Mills is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York.

JOY NESBITT received a B.S., with honors, from Florida A&M University in 1996, and an M.S. from Northeastern University in 1997. She graduated from Northeastern University School of Law in 2001. Upon graduating from law school, Ms. Nesbitt began her career as an associate in commercial litigation with Blackwell Sanders Peper Martin, LLP in Omaha, Nebraska where she conducted multiple successful settlement negotiations and practiced both defense and plaintiff work in labor & employment and complex multi-district litigation.

Ms. Nesbitt focuses her practice on healthcare litigation on behalf of physicians, medical associations

and consumers. Her work with the healthcare team includes participation in numerous federal and state litigations, including two large multi-district litigations in federal courts.

Ms. Nesbitt is admitted to the Bars of the States of Nebraska and New York and the District of Columbia. She is a member of the New York County Lawyers Association where she sits on the Minorities & Law and the Young Lawyers Section Committees. In addition, she is a member of the Nebraska State, District of Columbia, New York State and American Bar Associations.

BETH PARR earned her B.A. degree from Emory University in 2001, summa cum laude, and her J.D. from Georgetown University Law Center in 2004, cum laude. Ms. Parr focuses her practice primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and violations of state and federal consumer protection statutes. Ms. Parr graduated summa cum laude from Emory University in 2001 with a Bachelors degree in Political Science, and cum laude from Georgetown University Law Center in 2004, where she was a senior editor of the Georgetown Journal on Poverty Law and Policy, as well as two-time recipient of the C. Keefe Hurley Scholarship. While in law school, Ms. Parr served as a legislative intern at the National Low Income Housing Coalition, and authored the article Almost Home: Policy and Politics in the Campaign for a National Housing Trust Fund, 11 GEO. J. POVERTY LAW & POL'Y 321 (2004). She also participated in the Housing and Community Development Clinic for the Harrison Institute for Public Law and served on the Board of the Georgetown Chapter of the American Constitution Society.

Ms. Parr is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York.

CHRISTOPHER POLASZEK earned his B.S. degree from Florida State University in 1992, cum laude, his M.B.A. degree from Florida State University in 1997, cum laude, his J.D. degree from Florida State University in 1997, cum laude, and his LL.M. degree from Georgetown University in 2000. While pursuing his legal education, Mr. Polaszek interned with the Florida Senate and United States Senator Bob Graham. Mr. Polaszek currently specializes in securities fraud litigation. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Polaszek spent several years practicing commercial litigation with an emphasis on securities litigation and arbitration. In this regard, in addition to litigating matters in state and federal courts, he has represented numerous clients in securities arbitration proceedings conducted by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc., the New York Stock Exchange, and the American Arbitration Association. Mr. Polaszek is also a member of the


Firm Résumé 40

Federal Bar Association and the American Bar Association.

Mr. Polaszek is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of Florida, as well as the United States District Courts for the Northern and Middle Districts of Florida.

JOHN RADICE graduated magna cum laude from Princeton University in 1997 with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Politics and a Certificate in Political Theory. After working in finance for several years, Mr. Radice graduated from the NYU School of Law where he was an Arthur Garfield Hays Civil Rights & Civil Liberties Fellow and a member of the Journal of Legislation & Public Policy. Through the Hays Fellowship, Mr. Radice completed internships at the NAACP Legal Defense & Education Fund and the ACLU Immigrants' Rights Project.

Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Radice clerked for Judge Edith Brown Clement of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans. Mr. Radice focuses his practice on False Claims Act litigation, representing whistleblowers in numerous cases currently pending under seal, and securities litigation.

Mr. Radice is a member of the American Bar Association, the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, and Taxpayers Against Fraud Education Fund (TAF). He is admitted to practice law in the state courts of New Jersey and New York, and in the Federal District Courts for the District of New Jersey, and for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

ANDREI RADO, born in Bucharest, Romania, earned his B.A. degree in psychology summa cum laude, at the State University of New York at Buffalo in 1996; and his J.D. degree at St. John’s University, cum laude in 1999, where he was a member of Phi Beta Kappa. Mr. Rado authored 12 New York International Law Review 97, 1999.

Mr. Rado, who is fluent in Romanian, has worked at Milberg Weiss since 2000, where his practice focuses on securities and consumer class actions. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Rado worked as an attorney at Bear Stearns & Co. Inc., focusing on rules and regulations relating to resales of control and/or restricted securities. While in law school, Mr. Rado was a senior staff member of the New York International Law Review. Mr. Rado is the author of a case commentary, Ministry of Defense of Iran v. Cubic Defense Systems Inc., 12 N.Y. Int’l. L. Rev. 97 (1999).

Mr. Rado is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

CARLOS F. RAMIREZ earned his B.S. degree in legal studies cum laude from John Jay College of

Criminal Justice in 1994. He earned his J.D. degree from Fordham University School of Law in 1997, where he was an articles and notes editor of the Fordham Urban Law Journal and the recipient of the Department of Justice Civil Rights Fellowship. Mr. Ramirez is the author of “Administrative License Suspensions, Criminal Prosecution and the Double Jeopardy Clause,” 23 FORDHAM URB. L.J. 923 (1996). Upon graduation from law school, he served as an assistant district attorney in the Trial Division of the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office for three years.

Mr. Ramirez was admitted to the bar of the State of New York in 1998, and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. He is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York and the New York State Bar Association.

JOHN REDIKER earned his B.A. degree from the University of North Carolina in 1994, and his J.D. degree from Washington and Lee University School of Law in 1999. Mr. Rediker’s practice involves class action securities and consumer fraud litigation. In addition, Mr. Rediker also has experience in multi-party environmental litigation, complex commercial litigation, and he was associate in-house counsel for an international corporation. While in law school, he was Articles Editor for the Environmental Law Digest and was a third-year practice certified advocate for the Legal Aid Society of Rockbridge County.

Mr. Rediker is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of Colorado, as well as the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.

TATIANA RODRIGUEZ received a B.A. degree from McGill University in 1998, a J.D. from University of San Diego School of Law in 2001, and an L.L.M. from Boston University in Banking and Financial Law in 2004. During her LL.M. at Boston University, Ms. Rodriguez assisted in organizing and preparing materials examining the history and problems of the Investment Company Act. She also researched and wrote many papers dealing with current issues in the investment management industry.

Ms. Rodriguez focuses her practice on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. She currently represents shareholders in actions against various mutual fund families in which Milberg Weiss has been appointed sole lead counsel, including In re Goldman Sachs Fee Litigation (S.D.N.Y.) and In re Dreyfus Fee Litigation (W.D. Pa.).

Ms. Rodriguez is admitted to the Bars of the States of New York and California.


Firm Résumé 41

ELIZABETH ROSENBERG graduated from the University of Michigan in 1998 with a B.A. degree in psychology. In 2001, she earned her J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School. Ms. Rosenberg is admitted to practice in the State of New York and is a member of the New York State Bar Association.

LILI R. SABO graduated from the State University of New York at Albany in 1997 with a B.A. degree in political science. She earned her J.D. degree from Brooklyn Law School in 2002. Ms. Sabo was admitted to the bar of the State of New York in 2003, and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

JENNIFER SCLAR earned her B.A. degree from Barnard College in 1991, and her J.D. degree from Columbia University in 1995. Ms. Sclar is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

PATRICK J. SHEEHAN received his B.A. from the College of the Holy Cross in 1993 with a B.A. degree in history. In 1997, he received a J.D. degree from Northeastern University School of Law, where he was an editor of the NU Forum, the school’s law journal.

Mr. Sheehan focuses his practice on the representation of consumers, medical associations and health care providers in class actions and other complex litigation.

Mr. Sheehan is the co-author of a number of publications, including: “Class Actions In The Healthcare Context,” which was published for the following legal conferences: “Class Action Health Care Litigation,” ALI-ABA Health Car Law and Litigation Conference, 1999; “Class Actions: HMO and Health Care Providers Under Attack,” ALI-ABA Life and Health Insurance Litigation Conference, 2000; “Providers (Suits by Doctors and Hospital Class Actions),” ALI-ABA Health Car Law and Litigation Conference, 2000; “The Application of ERISA and RICO Theories in the Age of Managed Care,” The Judges and Lawyers Breast Cancer Alert, 2000; and “Health Care Litigation: What You Need to Know After Pegram,” Practicing Law Institute, 2000. Mr. Sheehan is also the co-author of “An Overview of Class Action Litigation In the Managed Care Context,” which was published for the following legal conferences: “Provider Suits by Doctors and Hospitals v. HMOs,” ALI-ABA Health Car Law and Litigation Conference, 2001 and American Society of Medical Associations Counsel, Fall 2002.

Mr. Sheehan was admitted to the bar of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts in 1998 and the bar of the State of New York in 2000. He is also admitted to practice in the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. He is also a member of the American Bar Association and the Bar of the City of New York. Mr. Sheehan’s practice focuses on the representation of health care providers and consumers in complex health care litigation.

TOMASITA L. SHERER earned her B.A. from New York University in 1992, and her J.D. degree from Fordham University School of Law in 1999. After college and prior to law school, Ms. Sherer worked as a radio broadcaster for a national syndication firm and was heard on several major market radio stations including WINS AM and WCBS AM in New York.

Ms. Sherer focuses her practice primarily on pharmaceutical and medical device cases on behalf of injured consumers. Currently, she represents hundreds of individuals who have suffered serious personal injuries as a result of taking recalled arthritis and pain killer medications, Vioxx and Bextra. She also represents hundreds of individuals who were implanted with defective heart defibrillators and/or pacemakers manufactured by Guidant and Medtronic. Ms. Sherer has successfully represented clients around the country who suffered heart valve damage as a result of using the diet drug combination known as Fen Phen and was instrumental in resolving numerous cases during national settlement talks.

Ms. Sherer is also experienced with mass and toxic tort litigation involving several other industries including insurance, manufacturing and transportation. Ms. Sherer has assisted in the negotiation and implementation of class action settlements in environmental and chemical contamination, occupational chemical exposure and insurance sales practices cases. In addition to her toxic tort and products liability practice, Ms. Sherer has additional experience in general commercial litigation, arbitration and antitrust matters.

Ms. Sherer is an active volunteer for several community based organizations and is a member of several bar associations, including the American Bar Association and Puerto Rican Bar Association. Ms. Sherer also serves on the firm’s Diversity Committee, where she works on planning programs and events related to the firm’s commitment to increase diversity in the firm.

Ms. Sherer was admitted to the bar of the State of New York in 2000, and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.


Firm Résumé 42

RALPH SIANNI graduated cum laude with distinction from the University of Pennsylvania in 1990 with a B.A. degree in history (American legal and constitutional) and was named to the Dean’s List and to Outstanding College Students of America. He earned an M.A. degree from Yale University in history (American legal and constitutional) in 1991 and a J.D. degree from the Boston University School of Law in 1995, where he served as an editor of the Boston University Public Interest Law Journal. While in law school, Mr. Sianni served as a teaching assistant for a course in the Boston University College of Communications, in both the graduate and undergraduate divisions, Mass Media and the First Amendment, where he lectured on issues of defamation, advertising law, and basic trademark and copyright.

After law school, Mr. Sianni served as law clerk to the Hon. Stephen J. McEwen, Jr., President Judge of the Pennsylvania Superior Court. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. Sianni practiced in the areas of appellate litigation, bankruptcy and trademark prosecution. Mr. Sianni was also part of a pro bono team for a prisoner civil rights case that was heard by the United States Supreme Court.

Mr. Sianni focuses his practice primarily on shareholder class actions involving mergers and acquisitions, as well as securities class actions.

Mr. Sianni is a member of the bars of the state of Delaware, the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the District of Columbia. Mr. Sianni is also admitted to practice and before the United States District Courts for the District of Delaware and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, and the United States Supreme Court.

CHRISTIAN SIEBOTT graduated in 1998 from the City University of New York School of Law where he was a Belle Zeller Scholar. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Christian clerked in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit and the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. He currently serves as an adjunct professor of Law at Cardozo Law School, and is a member of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, the New York State Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the Federal Bar Council Inn of Court.

Christian is admitted to practice in New York State, the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York, and the United States Courts of Appeals for the Second and Federal Circuits.

ALISHA C. SMITH graduated from the University of Maryland in 1997 with a B.A. degree in government and politics. In 2000, she earned her J.D. degree from

Washington University School of Law in St. Louis. While a law student, Ms. Smith clerked for Judge Theodore McMillian on the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit. Prior to graduation, she worked as a full-time intern at the Securities and Exchange Commission in the Division of Market Regulation Office of Chief Counsel.

After graduation, Ms. Smith remained in the Washington, D.C. area and in 2002 she received her LL.M. in securities regulation from the Georgetown University Law Center.

Ms. Smith focuses her practice in the area of securities fraud class action litigation.

Ms. Smith is a member of the Maryland State Bar Association, the American Bar Association, and the Securities and Exchange Commission Historical Society. Ms. Smith was admitted to practice in the State of Maryland in 2001 and admitted to practice in the State of New York in 2003.

LEIGH SMITH earned her B.A. degree from Rutgers University, New Brunswick, in 1990, with high honors, her M.A. degree from Rutgers University, New Brunswick, in 1994, and her J.D. degree from Cornell Law School in 1999. Ms. Smith focuses her practice on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors. She also has significant experience with complex commercial litigation. At Rutgers, Ms. Smith majored in French and was elected to Phi Beta Kappa and Phi Sigma Iota. As a graduate student, she studied French literature and film and spent a year in France working as an assistant English teacher. In law school, Ms. Smith served as the Acquisitions Editor for the Cornell Journal of Law and Public Policy and was a member of the Cornell Moot Court Board. She was a finalist in the Cuccia Cup Moot Court Competition and received a CALI Award for Outstanding Achievement for her work in Cornell’s Legal Aid Clinic. She also was active in a number of student organizations, including the Public Interest Law Union and the Women’s Law Coalition, and was co-chair of Lambda Law Students. Since graduating, Ms. Smith has been associated with law firms in New York and New Jersey.

Ms. Smith is admitted to practice in the courts of the States of New York, New Jersey and Massachusetts, as well as the United States District Courts for the District of New Jersey, the District of Massachusetts, and the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

CARY L. TALBOT graduated from the University of Michigan in 1991 with a B.A. degree. In 1997, he earned his J.D. degree from Washington University in St. Louis, where he was an associate editor of the Washington University Law Quarterly. Mr. Talbot is a


Firm Résumé 43

member of the New York State Bar Association and the American Bar Association. He is admitted to the New York State Bar and is admitted to practice before the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

ILZE C. THIELMANN earned her A.B. degree from Princeton University in 1988, and her J.D. degree from Columbia Law School in 1994. Ms. Thielmann is a member of Milberg Weiss’ healthcare litigation practice, and represents physicians, medical associations and consumers in complex litigations combating the wrongful practices of health insurers in state and federal courts throughout the United States.

Upon graduating from Columbia Law School in 1994, Ms. Thielmann began her career in complex commercial litigation at Simpson Thacher & Bartlett in New York. She moved on to Kirkland & Ellis in 1996, where she did both defense and plaintiff work in complex commercial litigation until she departed after becoming a mother in 1999. Ms. Thielmann joined the Milberg Weiss healthcare litigation team on a part-time basis in 2001 and has since become an associate of the Firm.

Ms. Thielmann’s work with the healthcare team has included participation in numerous federal and state litigations, including two large multi-district litigations in federal courts, work on several groundbreaking settlements with major health insurers, and extensive appellate work on behalf of appellant medical associations and class action representatives in various parts of the country.

Ms. Thielmann is admitted to practice in the courts of the State of New York, as well as the United States District Courts for the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York.

MELISA TWOMEY graduated from the Cornell University School of Industrial and Labor Relations in 2001 and earned her J.D. degree from Wayne State University School of Law in 2004. Ms. Twomey focuses her practice on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. She primarily represents defrauded shareholders in actions involving securities and accounting fraud. Ms. Twomey is admitted to the Florida State Bar and the District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

OLIVIA VASILESCU graduated from University of Pennsylvania in 1999 and earned her J.D. from The George Washington University Law School in 2003. While in law school, she researched issues in securities and corporate law for several papers on the Sarbanes-Oxley Act and stock market failures. Ms. Vasilescu also served as Co-President of the Law Association for

Women, and was a recipient of the Law School Pro Bono Award.

Ms. Vasilescu focuses her practice primarily on securities class actions on behalf of defrauded investors. She is a native French speaker. Ms. Vasilescu was admitted to the New York State Bar in 2004.

ADAM WEISS graduated with Distinction from Cornell University in 1998, Phi Beta Kappa. In 2004, Mr. Weiss graduated from the University of Pennsylvania School of Law. Prior to entering law school, Mr. Weiss was an Investigator at the New York City Civilian Complaint Review Board. While a law student, he was a Senior Editor of the Journal of Constitutional Law. He was also the recipient of the James Wilson Scholarship. Mr. Weiss was a summer associate at Milberg Weiss during the summers of 2002 and 2003.

Mr. Weiss’s practice areas include securities class action litigation and consumer fraud litigation on behalf of defrauded individual and institutional investors. In his largest case, he represents mutual fund investors in actions alleging that mutual fund companies and brokerage houses are charging their clients excessive fees and commissions. Mr. Weiss was admitted to the New Jersey State Bar in 2004 and the New York State Bar in 2005.

JOSEPH E. WHITE III graduated from Tufts University in 1996 with a B.A. degree in political science. In 2000, he earned a J.D. degree from Suffolk University Law School where he was also awarded Honorable Mention for Distinguished Oral Advocacy. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, Mr. White gained experience in all facets of civil litigation as an associate with an insurance defense firm concentrating in fraud cases.

Mr. White focuses his practice on investigating fraud and initiating class actions on behalf of defrauded individual and institutional investors. He has aided in successful recovery of investor losses in In re Hamilton Bancorp Securities Litigation (S.D. Fla.), In re Intercept Inc. Securities Litigation (N.D. Ga.), In re Clarus Securities Litigation, (N.D. Ga.) and In re Unicapital Securities Litigation (S.D. Fla).

When not litigating on behalf of defrauded investors, Mr. White provides free educational presentations to institutional investors on topics ranging from securities litigation in general, to the beneficial role securities monitoring has in assisting pension trustees in meeting their fiduciary duty.

Mr. White is a member of the state of Massachusetts Bar (2001), the U.S. District Court of Massachusetts Bar (2002), and the state of Florida Bar (2003).


Firm Résumé 44

ADAM H. WIERZBOWSKI graduated magna cum laude with high honors in English from Dartmouth College in 2000 and earned his J.D. degree with honors from The George Washington University Law School in 2003. While at George Washington, Mr. Wierzbowski was notes editor of The George Washington International Law Review and a member of the Moot Court Board. Mr. Wierzbowski also won Best Brief and was the Best Overall Competitor in the 2001-2002 Giles S. Rich Intellectual Property Law Moot Court Competition. Mr. Wierzbowski is admitted to the New York State Bar.

Mr. Wierzbowski focuses his practice on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers. He primarily represents mutual fund investors in actions involving the improper market timing and late trading of mutual fund shares in In re Mutual Funds Investment Litigation, MDL No. 1586 (D. Md.), and in actions alleging that mutual fund companies and brokerage houses are charging their clients excessive fees and commissions.

ANDREW WILMAR graduated magna cum laude and with distinction from Yale University in 1996, where he majored in political science and philosophy. In 2001, Mr. Wilmar graduated from Harvard Law School, where he was an executive editor for the Harvard Civil Rights-Civil Liberties Law Review, and a finalist in the Ames Moot Court Competition. He was also named Best Oralist by a panel of state and federal judges during the semi-final round of the Ames Competition. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss, he was a law clerk to the Honorable Robert L. Carter of the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York.

Mr. Wilmar’s practice is focused primarily on class actions on behalf of defrauded investors and consumers, as well as complex mass torts. Mr. Wilmar is a member of the New York Bar.

RACHEL WINTTERLE earned her B.A. degree from the University of Wisconsin in 1991, her M.A. degree from American University in 1994, and her J.D. degree from Tulane University School of Law in 2002. Ms. Wintterle concentrates her practice primarily in the area of healthcare litigation. Ms. Wintterle is also active in pro bono work and teaches a weekly Street Law program in the New York City public school system.

Ms. Wintterle is a member of the American Bar Association, New York State Bar Association and the Louisiana State Bar Association. Ms. Wintterle is admitted to practice in the courts of the States of Louisiana and New York.

JENNIFER YOUNG received a B.A. degree from University of South Carolina in 1996. She graduated

cum laude from the University’s School of Law in 2002. During law school, Ms. Young was Associate Editor in Chief of the South Carolina Law Review, as well as a member of the South Carolina Moot Court Bar.

Ms. Young focuses her practice primarily on mass tort and complex commercial litigation. Prior to joining Milberg Weiss in 2005, Ms. Young worked as an associate at a New York law firm concentrating in the area of mass torts.

Ms. Young is admitted to practice in the state courts of South Carolina and New York. Her admission to practice in England and Wales is currently pending.


EXHIBIT B

milberg weiss bershad & schulman llp jeff...

Documents